DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => Political and Religious Forum (aka the echo chamber) => Topic started by: 7th on November 23, 2016, 02:11:41 PM

Title: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 23, 2016, 02:11:41 PM
As of right now the popular vote is showing Clinton with approx. 2M more votes than Trump, but should we weigh in Stein and Johnson's votes as well?  By pure popular vote numbers, conservative candidates got more votes than democrat candidates.  By a margin of about 2M votes when you combine Johnson and Trump.  Clinton got more votes than any other individual, sure, but if we look at the popular vote by ideology, the conservatives clearly came out ahead.  Is the media failing to point this out, or does it just not matter because "Clinton Wins Popular Vote" is a better headline for controversy and sensationalism?  Would people be more accepting of the outcome if they were aware that more conservative votes were cast than democrat votes? 

Another observation, and this one is a bit more concerning, but do the people pushing for Hillary to call for recounts really want to open up that can of worms considering the number of alleged illegal immigrants and dead people who fraudulently voted for her.  If she goes up against Trump on this she's just going to come out looking like more of a crook even if she wins.  My opinion is to let it rest.  Trump has put forth a seemingly sane and viable plan, he's soft on many of the social issues we're all concerned about, and he's appearing to try to work with everyone and he's even bringing in dems as insiders.  Can't we just give the old orange dude a chance before we go and rehash the election?  What's your opinion?   

Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: pogoowner on November 23, 2016, 02:18:17 PM
Why would we start lumping Stein or Johnson's votes in with Clinton or Trump's?
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 23, 2016, 02:25:32 PM
Why would we start lumping Stein or Johnson's votes in with Clinton or Trump's?

To show the outcome based on ideology in order to educate the people upset about Hillary's loss that her ideology/party lost despite her winning the popular vote.  The mainstream media would have us believe that the *majority* of voters wanted a democrat in office, but this isn't true by the numbers.  I am not advocating actually merging the votes, I am just saying that when they are tallied by ideology, the cons won it. 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: lordxizor on November 23, 2016, 02:28:10 PM
Another observation, and this one is a bit more concerning, but do the people pushing for Hillary to call for recounts really want to open up that can of worms considering the number of alleged illegal immigrants and dead people who fraudulently voted for her.
Is there any evidence of this? You throw it out there like it's a fact.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: lordxizor on November 23, 2016, 02:29:25 PM
Why would we start lumping Stein or Johnson's votes in with Clinton or Trump's?

To show the outcome based on ideology in order to educate the people upset about Hillary's loss that her ideology/party lost despite her winning the popular vote.  The mainstream media would have us believe that the *majority* of voters wanted a democrat in office, but this isn't true by the numbers.  I am not advocating actually merging the votes, I am just saying that when they are tallied by ideology, the cons won it. 
I think a lot of people who would have otherwise voted Democrat voted for Johnson as the primary third party in this election. It's not fair to assume that all of his votes would have gone to Trump had it been a two person election.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Skeever on November 23, 2016, 02:36:42 PM
Finding the OP really hard to follow, quite a few strange assumptions. What is this supposed "ideology popular vote"? Johnson+Trump vs Stein+Clinton? That makes no sense, for a lot of reasons, but what about all the other third party candidates? Furthermore, what's the point of using any sort of popular vote as a gauge of what ideology people on the whole subscribe to when half the eligible population don't even vote?
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: bosk1 on November 23, 2016, 02:38:08 PM
How do you view the popular vote?

As largely irrelevant.

Finding the OP really hard to follow, quite a few strange assumptions.

Yeah, I pretty much agree.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: hefdaddy42 on November 23, 2016, 02:41:29 PM
The national total of the popular vote is, as bosky said, largely irrelevant, since it isn't a national election.  What matters is the vote in each state, which then determines the electoral votes for those states.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 23, 2016, 03:08:23 PM
Another observation, and this one is a bit more concerning, but do the people pushing for Hillary to call for recounts really want to open up that can of worms considering the number of alleged illegal immigrants and dead people who fraudulently voted for her.
Is there any evidence of this? You throw it out there like it's a fact.

Voter fraud is a fact, the question is how often and on what scale does it occur?  Also, note the word "alleged".  The interesting phenomenon here is that the liberal media claims there is very little voter fraud, and the conservative media claims it happens all the time.  Given that the mainstream liberal media has been outed as a progressive propaganda machine, therefore losing any shred of credibility of journalistic integrity they once had, I have to go with the cons on this one even though they probably cheat like mofos too.



 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: kingshmegland on November 23, 2016, 03:11:35 PM
(http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss272/kingshmegland/conspiracy-theory_zpsdrk1bllf.jpg) (http://s583.photobucket.com/user/kingshmegland/media/conspiracy-theory_zpsdrk1bllf.jpg.html)
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: antigoon on November 23, 2016, 03:13:03 PM
lol
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 23, 2016, 03:13:17 PM
How do you view the popular vote?

As largely irrelevant.

Finding the OP really hard to follow, quite a few strange assumptions.

Yeah, I pretty much agree.

To be more clear, my train of thought started when I heard Michael Moore claim to young, impressionable followers that "The Majority of Americans Voted Democrat!" referring to the popular vote.  I am showing that his statement is false by the numbers.  More votes were cast for conservatives.  No assumptions at all. 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: PowerSlave on November 23, 2016, 03:49:56 PM
As of right now the popular vote is showing Clinton with approx. 2M more votes than Trump, but should we weigh in Stein and Johnson's votes as well?  By pure popular vote numbers, conservative candidates got more votes than democrat candidates.  By a margin of about 2M votes when you combine Johnson and Trump.  Clinton got more votes than any other individual, sure, but if we look at the popular vote by ideology, the conservatives clearly came out ahead.  Is the media failing to point this out, or does it just not matter because "Clinton Wins Popular Vote" is a better headline for controversy and sensationalism?  Would people be more accepting of the outcome if they were aware that more conservative votes were cast than democrat votes?   

I'm a civil libertarian. You're assuming that I'm a conservative. You would be wrong. Mainstream Libertarians often are presented as being mostly conservative and people make the mistake of using their views as a blanket that covers the entirety of all Libertarians. While, in fact, there are many different movements and viewpoints that fall under the term. The wikipedia page for Libertarianism (while somewhat vague in some areas) is an ok place to learn the basics of some of the different views.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism


Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 23, 2016, 04:04:07 PM
As of right now the popular vote is showing Clinton with approx. 2M more votes than Trump, but should we weigh in Stein and Johnson's votes as well?  By pure popular vote numbers, conservative candidates got more votes than democrat candidates.  By a margin of about 2M votes when you combine Johnson and Trump.  Clinton got more votes than any other individual, sure, but if we look at the popular vote by ideology, the conservatives clearly came out ahead.  Is the media failing to point this out, or does it just not matter because "Clinton Wins Popular Vote" is a better headline for controversy and sensationalism?  Would people be more accepting of the outcome if they were aware that more conservative votes were cast than democrat votes?   

I'm a civil libertarian. You're assuming that I'm a conservative. You would be wrong. Mainstream Libertarians often are presented as being mostly conservative and people make the mistake of using their views as a blanket that covers the entirety of all Libertarians. While, in fact, there are many different movements and viewpoints that fall under the term. The wikipedia page for Libertarianism (while somewhat vague in some areas) is an ok place to learn the basics of some of the different views.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

I am speaking of ballots cast, not the ideology of the person casting the vote.  By the numbers, more conservative ballots were cast than democrat.  The "majority" of voters went right.  Other than me posting it here, I have never heard this fact discussed or commented on so I was curious about how others may perceive the outcome of the popular vote. 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: PowerSlave on November 23, 2016, 05:05:42 PM
As of right now the popular vote is showing Clinton with approx. 2M more votes than Trump, but should we weigh in Stein and Johnson's votes as well?  By pure popular vote numbers, conservative candidates got more votes than democrat candidates.  By a margin of about 2M votes when you combine Johnson and Trump.  Clinton got more votes than any other individual, sure, but if we look at the popular vote by ideology, the conservatives clearly came out ahead.  Is the media failing to point this out, or does it just not matter because "Clinton Wins Popular Vote" is a better headline for controversy and sensationalism?  Would people be more accepting of the outcome if they were aware that more conservative votes were cast than democrat votes?   

I'm a civil libertarian. You're assuming that I'm a conservative. You would be wrong. Mainstream Libertarians often are presented as being mostly conservative and people make the mistake of using their views as a blanket that covers the entirety of all Libertarians. While, in fact, there are many different movements and viewpoints that fall under the term. The wikipedia page for Libertarianism (while somewhat vague in some areas) is an ok place to learn the basics of some of the different views.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

I am speaking of ballots cast, not the ideology of the person casting the vote.  By the numbers, more conservative ballots were cast than democrat.  The "majority" of voters went right.  Other than me posting it here, I have never heard this fact discussed or commented on so I was curious about how others may perceive the outcome of the popular vote.

You do realize that you're contradicting yourself, right? The ideology is very much in play. If I had voted it would have been for Johnson/Weld. Hold a gun to my head and tell me that my only choices were either Hillary or Trump, and I'm pulling the lever for Hillary every time.

You're making the erroneous claim that votes cast for Johnson are all conservative. There's no basis for that, and you're wrong to make that assumption.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 23, 2016, 05:28:08 PM
As of right now the popular vote is showing Clinton with approx. 2M more votes than Trump, but should we weigh in Stein and Johnson's votes as well?  By pure popular vote numbers, conservative candidates got more votes than democrat candidates.  By a margin of about 2M votes when you combine Johnson and Trump.  Clinton got more votes than any other individual, sure, but if we look at the popular vote by ideology, the conservatives clearly came out ahead.  Is the media failing to point this out, or does it just not matter because "Clinton Wins Popular Vote" is a better headline for controversy and sensationalism?  Would people be more accepting of the outcome if they were aware that more conservative votes were cast than democrat votes?   

I'm a civil libertarian. You're assuming that I'm a conservative. You would be wrong. Mainstream Libertarians often are presented as being mostly conservative and people make the mistake of using their views as a blanket that covers the entirety of all Libertarians. While, in fact, there are many different movements and viewpoints that fall under the term. The wikipedia page for Libertarianism (while somewhat vague in some areas) is an ok place to learn the basics of some of the different views.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

I am speaking of ballots cast, not the ideology of the person casting the vote.  By the numbers, more conservative ballots were cast than democrat.  The "majority" of voters went right.  Other than me posting it here, I have never heard this fact discussed or commented on so I was curious about how others may perceive the outcome of the popular vote.

You do realize that you're contradicting yourself, right? The ideology is very much in play. If I had voted it would have been for Johnson/Weld. Hold a gun to my head and tell me that my only choices were either Hillary or Trump, and I'm pulling the lever for Hillary every time.

You're making the erroneous claim that votes cast for Johnson are all conservative. There's no basis for that, and you're wrong to make that assumption.

How is the fact that more votes were cast for conservatives than democrats erroneous?  What I said is plain and simple math.  No contradiction, no assumptions, no nothing.  Just wondering if anyone had thoughts on the outcome that take into account that more people voted against democrats than for democrats.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: PowerSlave on November 23, 2016, 05:53:15 PM
As of right now the popular vote is showing Clinton with approx. 2M more votes than Trump, but should we weigh in Stein and Johnson's votes as well?  By pure popular vote numbers, conservative candidates got more votes than democrat candidates.  By a margin of about 2M votes when you combine Johnson and Trump.  Clinton got more votes than any other individual, sure, but if we look at the popular vote by ideology, the conservatives clearly came out ahead.  Is the media failing to point this out, or does it just not matter because "Clinton Wins Popular Vote" is a better headline for controversy and sensationalism?  Would people be more accepting of the outcome if they were aware that more conservative votes were cast than democrat votes?   

I'm a civil libertarian. You're assuming that I'm a conservative. You would be wrong. Mainstream Libertarians often are presented as being mostly conservative and people make the mistake of using their views as a blanket that covers the entirety of all Libertarians. While, in fact, there are many different movements and viewpoints that fall under the term. The wikipedia page for Libertarianism (while somewhat vague in some areas) is an ok place to learn the basics of some of the different views.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

I am speaking of ballots cast, not the ideology of the person casting the vote.  By the numbers, more conservative ballots were cast than democrat.  The "majority" of voters went right.  Other than me posting it here, I have never heard this fact discussed or commented on so I was curious about how others may perceive the outcome of the popular vote.

You do realize that you're contradicting yourself, right? The ideology is very much in play. If I had voted it would have been for Johnson/Weld. Hold a gun to my head and tell me that my only choices were either Hillary or Trump, and I'm pulling the lever for Hillary every time.

You're making the erroneous claim that votes cast for Johnson are all conservative. There's no basis for that, and you're wrong to make that assumption.

How is the fact that more votes were cast for conservatives than democrats erroneous?  What I said is plain and simple math.  No contradiction, no assumptions, no nothing.  Just wondering if anyone had thoughts on the outcome that take into account that more people voted against democrats than for democrats.

Because you're calling the Libertarian vote conservative. It isn't. Your entire premise is based on that and it's wrong.

If those votes were conservative then they would have voted for Trump. They didn't, so they aren't. I can't state in a simpler way than that.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 23, 2016, 06:13:18 PM
As of right now the popular vote is showing Clinton with approx. 2M more votes than Trump, but should we weigh in Stein and Johnson's votes as well?  By pure popular vote numbers, conservative candidates got more votes than democrat candidates.  By a margin of about 2M votes when you combine Johnson and Trump.  Clinton got more votes than any other individual, sure, but if we look at the popular vote by ideology, the conservatives clearly came out ahead.  Is the media failing to point this out, or does it just not matter because "Clinton Wins Popular Vote" is a better headline for controversy and sensationalism?  Would people be more accepting of the outcome if they were aware that more conservative votes were cast than democrat votes?   

I'm a civil libertarian. You're assuming that I'm a conservative. You would be wrong. Mainstream Libertarians often are presented as being mostly conservative and people make the mistake of using their views as a blanket that covers the entirety of all Libertarians. While, in fact, there are many different movements and viewpoints that fall under the term. The wikipedia page for Libertarianism (while somewhat vague in some areas) is an ok place to learn the basics of some of the different views.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

I am speaking of ballots cast, not the ideology of the person casting the vote.  By the numbers, more conservative ballots were cast than democrat.  The "majority" of voters went right.  Other than me posting it here, I have never heard this fact discussed or commented on so I was curious about how others may perceive the outcome of the popular vote.

You do realize that you're contradicting yourself, right? The ideology is very much in play. If I had voted it would have been for Johnson/Weld. Hold a gun to my head and tell me that my only choices were either Hillary or Trump, and I'm pulling the lever for Hillary every time.

You're making the erroneous claim that votes cast for Johnson are all conservative. There's no basis for that, and you're wrong to make that assumption.

How is the fact that more votes were cast for conservatives than democrats erroneous?  What I said is plain and simple math.  No contradiction, no assumptions, no nothing.  Just wondering if anyone had thoughts on the outcome that take into account that more people voted against democrats than for democrats.

Because you're calling the Libertarian vote conservative. It isn't. Your entire premise is based on that and it's wrong.

If those votes were conservative then they would have voted for Trump. They didn't, so they aren't. I can't state in a simpler way than that.

I'd agree 100% if the whole left/right libertarian lines were clear, and I do realize Johnson is considered a L-Libertarian, though he was billed as the conservative alternative to Trump.  But your point is taken and it has merit so in the interest of intellectual honesty I will adjust my claim: The majority of votes cast were not for Clinton.  Which makes me wonder did she really win the popular vote?  Is the popular vote won by the individual with the most votes or by an individual with the majority of the votes?  According to Wikipedia, well, it's kinda unclear...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_vote_(representative_democracy)

By that flimsy definition, I am not sure Hills even really won the popular vote.  She did not get the highest percentage of votes, but she did get more votes than any other individual.   
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Adami on November 23, 2016, 06:18:13 PM
No one got a 51% majority popular vote. But Hilllary got more votes than trump.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: TAC on November 23, 2016, 06:23:05 PM
She did not get the highest percentage of votes, but she did get more votes than any other individual.   

Awesome. Now what is the point of this thread?
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 23, 2016, 06:52:56 PM
She did not get the highest percentage of votes, but she did get more votes than any other individual.   

Awesome. Now what is the point of this thread?

I was curious what people think about the popular vote outcome, given the realization that she did not win a majority of votes with the actual majority going to non-democrats (thank you PowerSlave for the distinction).  I personally think it reflects a rejection of what has become secular progressivism in US politics.  But, I'd wager that if you go interview people on college campuses with the question "did a majority of voters choose Hillary?" the answer would be "Yes, of course, she won the popular vote!"  The protestor smashing windows and lighting fires may not be doing so if they hadn't been told their candidate effectively won the people's vote but is being railroaded by the electoral college.  Heck even Barbara Boxxer is introducing legislation to abolish the electoral college.  You think she'd be doing that if the tables were turned and Hillary won the states but lost the popular?  So actually there are a lot of points to this thread in relation to how the nation is dealing with the election outcome.  Even today people are calling for recounts and suggesting Hillary is the "people's choice", and maybe she was, but I'm just asking the question: "is that really the case when we look at *all* the election results?" 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: TAC on November 23, 2016, 07:01:31 PM
OK. I wasn't asking to be a wise guy but I was confused.

Winning the Popular Vote, to me, means that she got more votes than any of other candidates, not all of them aggregated together. But I see what you're saying.

Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: lordxizor on November 23, 2016, 07:12:20 PM
Another observation, and this one is a bit more concerning, but do the people pushing for Hillary to call for recounts really want to open up that can of worms considering the number of alleged illegal immigrants and dead people who fraudulently voted for her.
Is there any evidence of this? You throw it out there like it's a fact.

Voter fraud is a fact, the question is how often and on what scale does it occur?  Also, note the word "alleged".  The interesting phenomenon here is that the liberal media claims there is very little voter fraud, and the conservative media claims it happens all the time.  Given that the mainstream liberal media has been outed as a progressive propaganda machine, therefore losing any shred of credibility of journalistic integrity they once had, I have to go with the cons on this one even though they probably cheat like mofos too.



 
As far as I know, it has nothing to do with journalistic bias toward the right and the left and everything to do with actual investigations performed by some government entity. They repeatedly find that known cases of voter fraud are so rare that they're basically non-existent.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: gmillerdrake on November 23, 2016, 07:12:52 PM
Considering clintons lead in popular vote comes from essentially one state, California, where she beat Trump by 3.7 million votes.....I don't see the relevance of a popular vote winner. One state can skew the appearance in either direction.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Adami on November 23, 2016, 07:15:02 PM
She did not get the highest percentage of votes, but she did get more votes than any other individual.   

Awesome. Now what is the point of this thread?

I was curious what people think about the popular vote outcome, given the realization that she did not win a majority of votes with the actual majority going to non-democrats (thank you PowerSlave for the distinction)

You could also say a majority of the votes went to non-republicans.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: TAC on November 23, 2016, 07:18:37 PM
She did not get the highest percentage of votes, but she did get more votes than any other individual.   

Awesome. Now what is the point of this thread?

I was curious what people think about the popular vote outcome, given the realization that she did not win a majority of votes with the actual majority going to non-democrats (thank you PowerSlave for the distinction)

You could also say a majority of the votes went to non-republicans.
And non Libertarians. ;D
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Adami on November 23, 2016, 07:21:25 PM
She did not get the highest percentage of votes, but she did get more votes than any other individual.   

Awesome. Now what is the point of this thread?

I was curious what people think about the popular vote outcome, given the realization that she did not win a majority of votes with the actual majority going to non-democrats (thank you PowerSlave for the distinction)

You could also say a majority of the votes went to non-republicans.
And non Libertarians. ;D

So clearly no one won the election. I say we scrap it, and start election v. 2. Each party gets to pick one nominee really quickly, they have 3 debates over the course of 2 weeks and then we all vote. End of story.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: PowerSlave on November 23, 2016, 07:31:04 PM
Considering clintons lead in popular vote comes from essentially one state, California, where she beat Trump by 3.7 million votes.....I don't see the relevance of a popular vote winner. One state can skew the appearance in either direction.

That's a valid point, but who's to say that a state shouldn't work that way, either. Traditionally (in the state that I live in, Ohio), most of the counties vote Republican, and a few of the counties that have large population centers vote Democrat. I'm assuming that it's usually the same way across most of the country as well. Would it be fair to limit counties to only accounting for a certain amount of votes towards who wins the state? This basically being the electoral college on the state level instead of the national level. The reason that I pose the question in this way is to put it on a smaller scale, so that's it's easier to comprehend as a whole. Hopefully I don't come off sounding like an idiot...

I'm on the fence about this. I've seen people put forth compelling arguments from each side of the issue.

Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: PowerSlave on November 23, 2016, 07:32:08 PM
She did not get the highest percentage of votes, but she did get more votes than any other individual.   

Awesome. Now what is the point of this thread?

I was curious what people think about the popular vote outcome, given the realization that she did not win a majority of votes with the actual majority going to non-democrats (thank you PowerSlave for the distinction)

You could also say a majority of the votes went to non-republicans.
And non Libertarians. ;D

So clearly no one won the election. I say we scrap it, and start election v. 2. Each party gets to pick one nominee really quickly, they have 3 debates over the course of 2 weeks and then we all vote. End of story.

I'm ok with this!
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 23, 2016, 08:20:38 PM
Considering clintons lead in popular vote comes from essentially one state, California, where she beat Trump by 3.7 million votes.....I don't see the relevance of a popular vote winner. One state can skew the appearance in either direction.

That's a valid point, but who's to say that a state shouldn't work that way, either. Traditionally (in the state that I live in, Ohio), most of the counties vote Republican, and a few of the counties that have large population centers vote Democrat. I'm assuming that it's usually the same way across most of the country as well. Would it be fair to limit counties to only accounting for a certain amount of votes towards who wins the state? This basically being the electoral college on the state level instead of the national level. The reason that I pose the question in this way is to put it on a smaller scale, so that's it's easier to comprehend as a whole. Hopefully I don't come off sounding like an idiot...

I'm on the fence about this. I've seen people put forth compelling arguments from each side of the issue.

That's a pretty good idea really, but it may already be done that way by how they assign precincts to electorates.  I don't know but it is a cool concept.  I don't really dig how it is now where many people's votes simply get washed out by other people's votes upstream, but I do believe we need the electoral college.  You know what is interesting about those population centers?  When you overlay a crime map on top of the red/blue vote distribution map they match up almost perfectly, in other words, the population centers that supported Hillary are where most of the nation's crooks are.  Go figure.  This is why the electoral college must remain: given a voting pool of two wolves and a sheep which is a perfect democracy of three voters, how can there be a fair vote for what's for dinner?
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Skeever on November 23, 2016, 09:23:57 PM
That's a pretty good idea really, but it may already be done that way by how they assign precincts to electorates.  I don't know but it is a cool concept.  I don't really dig how it is now where many people's votes simply get washed out by other people's votes upstream, but I do believe we need the electoral college.  You know what is interesting about those population centers?  When you overlay a crime map on top of the red/blue vote distribution map they match up almost perfectly, in other words, the population centers that supported Hillary are where most of the nation's crooks are.  Go figure.  This is why the electoral college must remain: given a voting pool of two wolves and a sheep which is a perfect democracy of three voters, how can there be a fair vote for what's for dinner?

Pretty incendiary statement to make without evidence. Care to share your source? I've seen similar claims on FB, which are totally bunk, because the map does not take into account crime per capita, and instead just tries to scare people into fearing the crime-ridden liberal cities. Source here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/11/16/no-the-viral-image-of-2016-election-results-and-2013-crime-rates-is-not-real/

According to this (http://247wallst.com/special-report/2015/01/02/the-most-dangerous-states-in-america-2/4/) report, the top 5 states  for violent crime per capita are:

5. Louisiana
4. Tennessee
3. Nevada
2. New Mexico
1. Alaska

So, 3/5 red states. If you bump the comparison up to the top 10, red states are still in the lead. Not trying to insist that the opposite of your statement is true, just trying to demonstrate how easily one can manipulate facts for the sake of fear mongering.

That said, I still am unclear on what your original point in your OP even was.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Adami on November 23, 2016, 09:30:14 PM
There is generally more crime in large populated cities. A lot of those large populated cities also tend to vote democrat.

It's unlikely these things have anything to do with one another outside of the fact that each is based on there being a large population.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 23, 2016, 10:09:58 PM
That's a pretty good idea really, but it may already be done that way by how they assign precincts to electorates.  I don't know but it is a cool concept.  I don't really dig how it is now where many people's votes simply get washed out by other people's votes upstream, but I do believe we need the electoral college.  You know what is interesting about those population centers?  When you overlay a crime map on top of the red/blue vote distribution map they match up almost perfectly, in other words, the population centers that supported Hillary are where most of the nation's crooks are.  Go figure.  This is why the electoral college must remain: given a voting pool of two wolves and a sheep which is a perfect democracy of three voters, how can there be a fair vote for what's for dinner?

Pretty incendiary statement to make without evidence. Care to share your source? I've seen similar claims on FB, which are totally bunk, because the map does not take into account crime per capita, and instead just tries to scare people into fearing the crime-ridden liberal cities. Source here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/11/16/no-the-viral-image-of-2016-election-results-and-2013-crime-rates-is-not-real/

According to this (http://247wallst.com/special-report/2015/01/02/the-most-dangerous-states-in-america-2/4/) report, the top 5 states  for violent crime per capita are:

5. Louisiana
4. Tennessee
3. Nevada
2. New Mexico
1. Alaska

So, 3/5 red states. If you bump the comparison up to the top 10, red states are still in the lead. Not trying to insist that the opposite of your statement is true, just trying to demonstrate how easily one can manipulate facts for the sake of fear mongering.

That said, I still am unclear on what your original point in your OP even was.

I agree it is easy to manipulate data, but it is common knowledge that major metro areas have more crime and it is also common knowledge that those areas tend to vote democrat.  We don't need snopes or the Washington post to verify common knowledge.  Heck, even in their "debunking" it appears the crime map and election map are indeed correlated or at least loosely elastic based on population.  Good old anecdotal evidence coupled with common sense tells me that I don't need to lock my car on my uncle's farm in the mountains but I damn well better in St Louis.

Once again, my original point was to explore the popular vote with the realization that more people voted against Hillary than for her.  That is all, I wasn't passing judgement either way.  I can accept she won the popular vote, but I do question if that has ever been properly defined.  I also question the media for running with it, potentially riling civil unrest, when I can't even find a clear definition of what the popular vote is. 

This isn't politics, it is math.  Right now the math shows that Hillary did not get a majority of the votes, yet I believe a large section of society believes she did due to fake news and the continued progressive propaganda from news sources who were basically all debunked on Nov 8th.  Honestly, I don't how the people of the CNNS and MSNBCs and NYTs of the world can even show their faces.  They are supposed to be experts, yet they clearly know very little about the nation and its people.  Fox was the only network to acknowledge Trump as a contender but even they did it with a "when pigs fly" smug attitude.  Just sayin, don't ask me to cite these bozos as "evidence" when they clearly are grossly flawed and incompetent in their assessment of the available information. 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Adami on November 23, 2016, 10:12:33 PM
No one thinks Hillary got the most votes. People think Hillary got the most votes of the two main candidates.

She did.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 23, 2016, 10:25:55 PM
No one thinks Hillary got the most votes. People think Hillary got the most votes of the two main candidates.

She did.

Indeed, but I have heard major news sources and pundits say "The *majority* of voters chose to be with her" and similar sentiments.  I have no problem that she is acknowledged for winning the popular vote, I am just concerned that people are being spoonfed the delusion that the majority of voters picked her.  They didn't.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Adami on November 23, 2016, 10:30:07 PM
I dunno what to tell you man, in this thread, the people to whom you are speaking, do not believe what you fear people believe.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Cool Chris on November 23, 2016, 10:52:42 PM
I am just concerned that people are being spoonfed the delusion that the majority of voters picked her. 

There are many spoons out there, and people will generally feed off of whatever is most palatable to them, delusion or otherwise.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 23, 2016, 10:58:00 PM
I dunno what to tell you man, in this thread, the people to whom you are speaking, do not believe what you fear people believe.

Exactly.  This is why I was asking the question in the first place.  I am curious what people think about the status of the popular vote thing.  I only brought up the "majority" argument because I hadn't heard anyone else mention it and I thought it was relevant to the question I was asking.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Ħ on November 23, 2016, 11:27:37 PM
The fact someone can win the popular vote and not win the election is pretty odd. But in the presence of the electoral college helps mitigate problems that could arise from lacking a ranked voting system.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: TAC on November 24, 2016, 06:08:11 AM
Once again, my original point was to explore the popular vote with the realization that more people voted against Hillary than for her.  That is all, I wasn't passing judgement either way.  I can accept she won the popular vote, but I do question if that has ever been properly defined.  I also question the media for running with it, potentially riling civil unrest, when I can't even find a clear definition of what the popular vote is. 
I think most people with a brain can figure this out. But like Adami said, most people discuss the voting in relation to only Trump and Hillary.



This isn't politics, it is math.  Right now the math shows that Hillary did not get a majority of the votes, yet I believe a large section of society believes she did due to fake news and the continued progressive propaganda from news sources who were basically all debunked on Nov 8th.  Honestly, I don't how the people of the CNNS and MSNBCs and NYTs of the world can even show their faces.  They are supposed to be experts, yet they clearly know very little about the nation and its people.  Fox was the only network to acknowledge Trump as a contender but even they did it with a "when pigs fly" smug attitude.  Just sayin, don't ask me to cite these bozos as "evidence" when they clearly are grossly flawed and incompetent in their assessment of the available information. 

Sean Hannity has joined DTF!!!  ;D
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Skeever on November 24, 2016, 06:32:53 AM
I agree it is easy to manipulate data, but it is common knowledge that major metro areas have more crime and it is also common knowledge that those areas tend to vote democrat.  We don't need snopes or the Washington post to verify common knowledge.  Heck, even in their "debunking" it appears the crime map and election map are indeed correlated or at least loosely elastic based on population.  Good old anecdotal evidence coupled with common sense tells me that I don't need to lock my car on my uncle's farm in the mountains but I damn well better in St Louis.
But the correlation (which is much loser than the bad Facebook meme map represents) is circumstantial. I'm still not totally sure what the conclusion you're trying to draw from this is, though.

Quote
Once again, my original point was to explore the popular vote with the realization that more people voted against Hillary than for her.  That is all, I wasn't passing judgement either way.  I can accept she won the popular vote, but I do question if that has ever been properly defined.  I also question the media for running with it, potentially riling civil unrest, when I can't even find a clear definition of what the popular vote is. 
How do you define the popular vote?

Quote
This isn't politics, it is math.  Right now the math shows that Hillary did not get a majority of the votes, yet I believe a large section of society believes she did due to fake news and the continued progressive propaganda from news sources who were basically all debunked on Nov 8th.  Honestly, I don't how the people of the CNNS and MSNBCs and NYTs of the world can even show their faces.  They are supposed to be experts, yet they clearly know very little about the nation and its people.  Fox was the only network to acknowledge Trump as a contender but even they did it with a "when pigs fly" smug attitude.  Just sayin, don't ask me to cite these bozos as "evidence" when they clearly are grossly flawed and incompetent in their assessment of the available information.
I'll give you the TV guys - all those are crap. But if the NYT is fake news, what's real news? So far, it seems like you've pulled mostly from anecdote and Facebook memes to back up your points. Assuming you're getting this stuff from "somewhere", what "real" news source should we be reading to get a clear picture of things?
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 24, 2016, 09:28:27 AM
I'll give you the TV guys - all those are crap. But if the NYT is fake news, what's real news? So far, it seems like you've pulled mostly from anecdote and Facebook memes to back up your points. Assuming you're getting this stuff from "somewhere", what "real" news source should we be reading to get a clear picture of things?

Wait, you think the NYT is actual news???  They are clearly a leftist propaganda organization or did you not notice that?  Don't expect me to cite "news" sources as evidence very often, though I will cite the NYT below as evidence that the biased nature of the paper is a reality.  1. The news sources have been proven to be biased and dishonest.  2. This isn't university and we are discussing matters any reasonably educated person should be able to debate without citations.  3. Relying on ultra left-wing or right-wing sources for accurate information is a fools game.  I will stand anecdotal evidence against their "fact checking" any day of the week.  If you haven't noticed, all these sources are wrong about everything all the time.  Why give them any credibility or assume they have any value at all?  Heck, even our academic institutions have become propaganda playgrounds.  I say if you want something close to the truth, look within.  Everything else can only be taken with a grain of salt in a world where people lie about everything all the time. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/public-editor/liz-spayd-the-new-york-times-public-editor.html?_r=0

The moral here is that the old liberal standby argument "show me some evidence" isn't going to fly anymore because the pool of evidence everyone is drawing from has been tainted by bias.  We are left with our wits and experiences to draw from instead of having our worldviews plugged into our eyes by corporate-sponsored content mills.
   
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on November 24, 2016, 09:45:17 AM
Clinton got more votes than any other individual, sure, but if we look at the popular vote by ideology, the conservatives clearly came out ahead.  Is the media failing to point this out, or does it just not matter because "Clinton Wins Popular Vote" is a better headline for controversy and sensationalism?

We're electing a person, not an ideology.  The ideology is part of the person, but grand total conservative ideology win, counting ALL conservative candidate votes really doesn't matter, as we only vote for and elect ONE person.  It is not a media conspiracy to push the Clintons.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: antigoon on November 24, 2016, 09:52:30 AM
Well this thread went quickly from "I'm just asking questions" to "liberal media conspiracy" real quick.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 73109 on November 24, 2016, 10:28:08 AM
The fact that an institution like the NYT can be blatantly dismissed as lying, left-wing propaganda in favor of intuition, experience, and "common sense" is genuinely terrifying, as is the assumption that we no longer need to fact check because the facts are bow lies.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 24, 2016, 10:33:38 AM
It is not a media conspiracy to push the Clintons.

I agree we are electing a person, and I agree that the popular vote is what it is.  Respectfully, CNN was caught red-handed passing debate questions to Hill's campaign.  Couple this with reporting that always painted Hillary in a good light while painting Trump as Satan's Little Helper, and well, it looks like that "conspiracy" is damn plausible.  I am somewhat shocked that people are still buying it.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 24, 2016, 10:36:43 AM
The fact that an institution like the NYT can be blatantly dismissed as lying, left-wing propaganda in favor of intuition, experience, and "common sense" is genuinely terrifying, as is the assumption that we no longer need to fact check because the facts are bow lies.

I am on the other side of this.  I am terrified to be in a society that blindly accepts political propaganda as credible information to build a worldview upon.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 73109 on November 24, 2016, 10:38:09 AM
I don't blindly accept everything. I fact check. News sources often site their sources. And they site their sources. Experience means nothing. Anecdotal evidence means nothing. Facts—which are openly available—are everything.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: KevShmev on November 24, 2016, 10:44:10 AM
The fact that an institution like the NYT can be blatantly dismissed as lying, left-wing propaganda in favor of intuition, experience, and "common sense" is genuinely terrifying, as is the assumption that we no longer need to fact check because the facts are bow lies.

The media itself is corrupt, biased, idealistic and agenda-driven, and NYT is one of the worst offenders in that regard (as are MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc.).  I get that many just want an echo chamber, where they watch a channel or read a newspaper that drives the stories and narratives they want to believe, but it's dangerous to take the media's word for just about anything in today's political climate.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 73109 on November 24, 2016, 10:49:44 AM
Biased? Sure. Everyone is biased. Corrupt? Don't really think so.

Explain to me, then, how you get your "facts."

I'm not saying that you shouldn't read critically, check on what is written, etc. I'm saying that to immediately dismiss anything the NYT (or even Fox News) says as blatant propaganda is dangerous. 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 24, 2016, 10:53:25 AM
I don't blindly accept everything. I fact check. News sources often site their sources. And they site their sources. Experience means nothing. Anecdotal evidence means nothing. Facts—which are openly available—are everything.

What if the sources of the "facts" are wrong?  What if the sources are lying?  What if the outcomes are simply errant?  What about freewill, personal preference, and simple faith?  Facts are cool and serve their purpose, but they don't add much to the human experience.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 24, 2016, 10:57:57 AM

Explain to me, then, how you get your "facts."


"I don't care about facts" - Steve Jobs.

I am with Steve on this one.  Facts are useful tools in certain applications, but when they are wielded as rules for conformity, consensus, and groupthink amongst people, I become a total rebel. :-)
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 73109 on November 24, 2016, 11:02:46 AM
So then how do you determine truth from falsehood on a daily basis?

Personal preference doesn't explain everything, or anything...in my personal preference.

My problem with that worldview is that it is easy to shake off any unpleasantness simply because you can say you don't believe it or you don't agree with it. Climate change is the biggy on this. The vast vast vast vast vast majority of climate scientists believe that climate change is a) real and b) very much exacerbated by humans. This will have dire consequences if we don't do anything, but it is extraordinarily easy to ignore the (rather intuitive) science and just say "leftist conspiracy," when it doesn't line up with the way you think.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 24, 2016, 11:03:52 AM
The fact that an institution like the NYT can be blatantly dismissed as lying, left-wing propaganda in favor of intuition, experience, and "common sense" is genuinely terrifying, as is the assumption that we no longer need to fact check because the facts are bow lies.

The media itself is corrupt, biased, idealistic and agenda-driven, and NYT is one of the worst offenders in that regard (as are MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc.).  I get that many just want an echo chamber, where they watch a channel or read a newspaper that drives the stories and narratives they want to believe, but it's dangerous to take the media's word for just about anything in today's political climate.

+1, this is exactly where I am at with this.  We had an opportunity to leverage technology to build information dissemination networks that would be honest, academically viable, trustworthy sources of global information.  What we ended up with are corporate driven or state run propaganda and advertising machines used to control the people and the markets they trade in.  Much like Trump's drain the swamp idea for lobbyists, I say pull the plug on mainstream media.  I can learn more about the world from you good folks here than I can watching CNN or Fox.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 24, 2016, 11:14:26 AM
So then how do you determine truth from falsehood on a daily basis?

Personal preference doesn't explain everything, or anything...in my personal preference.

My problem with that worldview is that it is easy to shake off any unpleasantness simply because you can say you don't believe it or you don't agree with it. Climate change is the biggy on this. The vast vast vast vast vast majority of climate scientists believe that climate change is a) real and b) very much exacerbated by humans. This will have dire consequences if we don't do anything, but it is extraordinarily easy to ignore the (rather intuitive) science and just say "leftist conspiracy," when it doesn't line up with the way you think.

Agreed.  If a group of scientists concludes that climate change is a real phenomenon, I applaud their work.  When it becomes a political bargaining chip, that is when it gets sketchy.  I am not denying the facts derived from the scientific method, I am denying the "facts" communicated to the people by those with questionable agendas.  Even with something as serious as climate science people have been caught skewing data to serve political or business purposes.  So it comes down to being able to trust people.  People are flawed, therefor the things they create are potentially flawed, and good scientists know this so they leave the door open to question everything.

 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Skeever on November 24, 2016, 11:31:17 AM
The fact that an institution like the NYT can be blatantly dismissed as lying, left-wing propaganda in favor of intuition, experience, and "common sense" is genuinely terrifying, as is the assumption that we no longer need to fact check because the facts are bow lies.

The media itself is corrupt, biased, idealistic and agenda-driven, and NYT is one of the worst offenders in that regard (as are MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc.).  I get that many just want an echo chamber, where they watch a channel or read a newspaper that drives the stories and narratives they want to believe, but it's dangerous to take the media's word for just about anything in today's political climate.
NYT is flawed, but comparing them with TV news is totally outrageous. TV news doesn't even qualify as journalism, IMO. NYT do. Their regular coverage is actually pretty good, but most people just judge them based on whether or not they like what the editorial board had said.

Disappointed 7th couldn't share one "legitimate" (to him) news source with the group. If you're gonna blanket discount everything, at least share what is credible to you.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Adami on November 24, 2016, 11:43:40 AM
What the hell is going on in this thread?
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: PowerSlave on November 24, 2016, 11:49:03 AM
What the hell is going on in this thread?

It should be merged with the Illuminati thread.Then again, that one started to go off the rails as well.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 24, 2016, 12:21:31 PM
What the hell is going on in this thread?

Seems to me like we are having a decent discussion here.  What's the issue?
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 24, 2016, 12:24:55 PM
The fact that an institution like the NYT can be blatantly dismissed as lying, left-wing propaganda in favor of intuition, experience, and "common sense" is genuinely terrifying, as is the assumption that we no longer need to fact check because the facts are bow lies.

The media itself is corrupt, biased, idealistic and agenda-driven, and NYT is one of the worst offenders in that regard (as are MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc.).  I get that many just want an echo chamber, where they watch a channel or read a newspaper that drives the stories and narratives they want to believe, but it's dangerous to take the media's word for just about anything in today's political climate.
NYT is flawed, but comparing them with TV news is totally outrageous. TV news doesn't even qualify as journalism, IMO. NYT do. Their regular coverage is actually pretty good, but most people just judge them based on whether or not they like what the editorial board had said.

Disappointed 7th couldn't share one "legitimate" (to him) news source with the group. If you're gonna blanket discount everything, at least share what is credible to you.

I most certainly can list a legitimate news source: Google.  Because using that tool I can find all the various biased sources and weed through them to make a personal determination based on my own education and life experience.  Then I can read what people are yapping about on social networks and in forums like this and come to a reasonable conclusion (that usually turn out to be pretty accurate). 

Oh man, now I am reminded of that cut scene in Peace Sells..."This IS the news!"  :metal
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Elite on November 24, 2016, 03:59:47 PM
I don't blindly accept everything. I fact check. News sources often site their sources. And they site their sources. Experience means nothing. Anecdotal evidence means nothing. Facts—which are openly available—are everything.

What if the sources of the "facts" are wrong?  What if the sources are lying?  What if the outcomes are simply errant?  What about freewill, personal preference, and simple faith?  Facts are cool and serve their purpose, but they don't add much to the human experience.

And this is exactly how false 'news' comes into existence.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Prog Snob on November 24, 2016, 09:22:28 PM
The fact that an institution like the NYT can be blatantly dismissed as lying, left-wing propaganda in favor of intuition, experience, and "common sense" is genuinely terrifying, as is the assumption that we no longer need to fact check because the facts are bow lies.

The media itself is corrupt, biased, idealistic and agenda-driven, and NYT is one of the worst offenders in that regard (as are MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc.).  I get that many just want an echo chamber, where they watch a channel or read a newspaper that drives the stories and narratives they want to believe, but it's dangerous to take the media's word for just about anything in today's political climate.
NYT is flawed, but comparing them with TV news is totally outrageous. TV news doesn't even qualify as journalism, IMO. NYT do. Their regular coverage is actually pretty good, but most people just judge them based on whether or not they like what the editorial board had said.

Disappointed 7th couldn't share one "legitimate" (to him) news source with the group. If you're gonna blanket discount everything, at least share what is credible to you.

I most certainly can list a legitimate news source: Google.  Because using that tool I can find all the various biased sources and weed through them to make a personal determination based on my own education and life experience.  Then I can read what people are yapping about on social networks and in forums like this and come to a reasonable conclusion (that usually turn out to be pretty accurate). 

Oh man, now I am reminded of that cut scene in Peace Sells..."This IS the news!"  :metal

I don't think Google counts...unless they're producing news. If they did, it would probably be left-biased so it wouldn't be much better than Republicans using Fox News. It concerns me that we need to Google things to find news. It means that there aren't automatic sources we can refer to when we want some no-nonsense news. We have to read through lots of masturbation for each side before finding something we can call credible. I don't read the NYT but it's not because they're a bad news source. They're just more slanted to the left and, I think it was Skeever that said, people aren't going to read a news source if they find it has a bias against what they believe. If they start to ignore facts just because they have an agenda, then they become disreputable. I can't judge them in that sense because I never read it so someone else would have to comment on that. Keep in mind that there are right wing and left wing sources that are guilty of that.

If you want some good editorial, try Counter Punch. Yes they're slightly biased to the left, but I've seen their articles hammer Obama for numerous things so I can't say they're biased. Avoid the news sources that will usually pine for their side no matter what the facts are (MSNBC, Fox, CNN). I like Reason.com but they are more Libertarian slanted (which is what I am) but I still find them more accurate that most of the mainstream sources. If you're a radical capitalist like me, Reason.com will be your new favorite place to go. However, I know you said you supported Trump. Reason.com has not shown too much love for him. And actually a lot of their articles didn't show much love for Gary Johnson either. Most of them, like myself, don't find him to be a true Libertarian. I also enjoy the articles on The Objective Standard. There are others out there. You can tell after reading a few articles what they're worth.

Don't confuse your ideologies with the facts.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 24, 2016, 09:32:46 PM
The fact that an institution like the NYT can be blatantly dismissed as lying, left-wing propaganda in favor of intuition, experience, and "common sense" is genuinely terrifying, as is the assumption that we no longer need to fact check because the facts are bow lies.

The media itself is corrupt, biased, idealistic and agenda-driven, and NYT is one of the worst offenders in that regard (as are MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc.).  I get that many just want an echo chamber, where they watch a channel or read a newspaper that drives the stories and narratives they want to believe, but it's dangerous to take the media's word for just about anything in today's political climate.
NYT is flawed, but comparing them with TV news is totally outrageous. TV news doesn't even qualify as journalism, IMO. NYT do. Their regular coverage is actually pretty good, but most people just judge them based on whether or not they like what the editorial board had said.

Disappointed 7th couldn't share one "legitimate" (to him) news source with the group. If you're gonna blanket discount everything, at least share what is credible to you.

I most certainly can list a legitimate news source: Google.  Because using that tool I can find all the various biased sources and weed through them to make a personal determination based on my own education and life experience.  Then I can read what people are yapping about on social networks and in forums like this and come to a reasonable conclusion (that usually turn out to be pretty accurate). 

Oh man, now I am reminded of that cut scene in Peace Sells..."This IS the news!"  :metal

I don't think Google counts...unless they're producing news. If they did, it would probably be left-biased so it wouldn't be much better than Republicans using Fox News. It concerns me that we need to Google things to find news. It means that there aren't automatic sources we can refer to when we want some no-nonsense news. We have to read through lots of masturbation for each side before finding something we can call credible. I don't read the NYT but it's not because they're a bad news source. They're just more slanted to the left and, I think it was Skeever said, people aren't going to read a news source if they find it has a bias against what they believe. If they start to ignore facts just because they have an agenda, then they become disreputable. I can't judge them in that sense because I never read it so someone else would have to comment on that. Keep in mind that there are right wing and left wing sources that are guilty of that.

If you want some good editorial, try Counter Punch. Yes they're slightly biased to the left, but I've seen their articles hammer Obama for numerous things so I can't say they're biased. Avoid the news sources that will usually pine for their side no matter what the facts are (MSNBC, Fox, CNN). I like Reason.com but they are more Libertarian slanted (which is what I am) but I still find them more accurate that most of the mainstream sources. If you're a radical capitalist like me, Reason.com will be your new favorite place to go. However, I know you said you supported Trump. Reason.com has not shown too much love for him. And actually a lot of their articles didn't show much love for Gary Johnson either. Most of them, like myself, don't find him to be a true Libertarian. I also enjoy the articles on The Objective Standard. There are others out there. You can tell after reading a few articles what they're worth.

Don't confuse your ideologies with the facts.

Good post.  I will check out Reason.com and Counter Punch.  I think it is healthy to scrutinize Trump, but it needs to be fair.  My main reasons for supporting him were that I loathe the Clintons and I actually think the nation needs a non politician to shake things up.  Beyond that, I expect him to do the job but if he fucks it up I will be the first to call him on it.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Super Dude on November 26, 2016, 09:15:08 AM
Another observation, and this one is a bit more concerning, but do the people pushing for Hillary to call for recounts really want to open up that can of worms considering the number of alleged illegal immigrants and dead people who fraudulently voted for her.
Is there any evidence of this? You throw it out there like it's a fact.

Something something post-fact society.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 26, 2016, 12:32:46 PM
Another observation, and this one is a bit more concerning, but do the people pushing for Hillary to call for recounts really want to open up that can of worms considering the number of alleged illegal immigrants and dead people who fraudulently voted for her.
Is there any evidence of this? You throw it out there like it's a fact.

Something something post-fact society.

Now that recounts are official and the Clintons are involved, how many democrats are ready to renounce the party and mainstream media for the smug hypocrisy of smearing Trump for saying he'd "wait and see" about election results?  Do they think they will overturn the election and Hillary will take office?  Yeah, that would be just peachy wouldn't it?  The most corrupt women in the country overturning the presidential election process with lawyers.  But since the likelihood of that happening is essentially zero, why put the nation through more election shit?  The world has already accepted the results, is gearing up for a Trump term, and Trump's plans are not outrageous or divisive.  Why not just go with it?  Well, because without Hillary in office the most corrupt people in the world lose their gravy train.  Amazing they have conned so many seemingly smart people into supporting their scam - violently even.

As for a "post fact society", that is the ultimate goal.  See, the "facts" many people cling to are simply wrong.  This is why so many were surprised with the election results.  The "facts" they believed (and many still do) are lies.  Lies used to literally brainwash the vulnerable.  We need to adjust society back to only granting the term "fact" to properly testable, quantifiable conclusions.  Facts should be very rare, but today everyone's heads are full of "facts" that simply are not real. 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on November 26, 2016, 04:36:07 PM

The most corrupt women in the country.

Trump's plans are not outrageous or divisive.

without Hillary in office the most corrupt people in the world lose their gravy train.

The "facts" they believed (and many still do) are lies.  Lies used to literally brainwash the vulnerable. 


Are these your "facts"?

hyperbole
[hahy-pur-buh-lee]
noun, Rhetoric.
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 26, 2016, 05:16:26 PM

The most corrupt women in the country.

Trump's plans are not outrageous or divisive.

without Hillary in office the most corrupt people in the world lose their gravy train.

The "facts" they believed (and many still do) are lies.  Lies used to literally brainwash the vulnerable. 


hyperbole
[hahy-pur-buh-lee]
noun, Rhetoric.
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.

But, "Hillary won majority of the vote..." or "We need a recount because Russian hackers swayed the election" are acceptable unexaggerated truths?  But I'll play along.  Maybe my ramblings on the subject are nothing more than hyperbolic bias and everyone's love for Hillary is justified because she's a great person.  If this is the case, my justification for not trusting her is due to the lies from the mainstream media calling her out as a corrupt and incompetent politician for the past 2.5 *decades*.  Hard for me to hear about controversy after controversy after controversy and believe it's all a vast right-wing conspiracy.  Let's face it, the Clintons are greasy and pretend they are not.  Trump is greasy and says "yeah so what?".  Which is more respectable?  I gotta go with Trump. 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on November 26, 2016, 05:30:53 PM

The most corrupt women in the country.

Trump's plans are not outrageous or divisive.

without Hillary in office the most corrupt people in the world lose their gravy train.

The "facts" they believed (and many still do) are lies.  Lies used to literally brainwash the vulnerable. 


hyperbole
[hahy-pur-buh-lee]
noun, Rhetoric.
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.

But, "Hillary won majority of the vote..." or "We need a recount because Russian hackers swayed the election" are acceptable unexaggerated truths?  But I'll play along.  Maybe my ramblings on the subject are nothing more than hyperbolic bias and everyone's love for Hillary is justified because she's a great person.  If this is the case, my justification for not trusting her is due to the lies from the mainstream media calling her out as a corrupt and incompetent politician for the past 2.5 *decades*.  Hard for me to hear about controversy after controversy after controversy and believe it's all a vast right-wing conspiracy.  Let's face it, the Clintons are greasy and pretend they are not.  Trump is greasy and says "yeah so what?".  Which is more respectable?  I gotta go with Trump. 

All are hyperbole, and none are more acceptable than another. 
They do have a legitimate place in a discussion....maybe the comment section on a Yahoo article?
Surely not here in the DTF P/R, right?

Also, you are basing your support for Trump on what...him admitting he is "greasy"?  I would like to see where Trump admits where he is "greasy".  And by greasy I assume you mean the "Clinton-like" attributes you talk about?  In my assessment, both candidates are equal in that respect.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 73109 on November 26, 2016, 06:07:38 PM
In what universe did Clinton not actually win the popular vote?
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: lordxizor on November 26, 2016, 06:10:18 PM
He'd caught up in semantics. He's saying the people are saying Hillary won the majority of the vote, which is technically incorrect.  Hoever, nobody really counts the third parties so of course everyone other than 7th understands this statement to mean that she received more votes than Trump.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 73109 on November 26, 2016, 06:16:02 PM
As for a "post fact society", that is the ultimate goal.  See, the "facts" many people cling to are simply wrong.  This is why so many were surprised with the election results.  The "facts" they believed (and many still do) are lies.  Lies used to literally brainwash the vulnerable.  We need to adjust society back to only granting the term "fact" to properly testable, quantifiable conclusions.  Facts should be very rare, but today everyone's heads are full of "facts" that simply are not real. 

Also, can not even the more conservative people on the forums—Stadler, Bosk, whomever—recognize how dangerous this thought process is?

7th, please tell me, what "facts" do people cling to that are wrong? I think you fundamentally misunderstand what a fact is. All of the "facts" before the election pointed to the assumption that Clinton would probably win the election. That was a "fact." What is also a "fact" is that Trump outperformed the polls. That's why people were shocked. No one would have said it is a fact that Trump was going to lose. You seem to be building a strawman and in so doing saying some really crazy and outright dangerous things.

I insist—what facts do people cling to that are ultimately lies put forward to brain wash them?
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 26, 2016, 10:04:44 PM
As for a "post fact society", that is the ultimate goal.  See, the "facts" many people cling to are simply wrong.  This is why so many were surprised with the election results.  The "facts" they believed (and many still do) are lies.  Lies used to literally brainwash the vulnerable.  We need to adjust society back to only granting the term "fact" to properly testable, quantifiable conclusions.  Facts should be very rare, but today everyone's heads are full of "facts" that simply are not real. 

Also, can not even the more conservative people on the forums—Stadler, Bosk, whomever—recognize how dangerous this thought process is?

7th, please tell me, what "facts" do people cling to that are wrong? I think you fundamentally misunderstand what a fact is. All of the "facts" before the election pointed to the assumption that Clinton would probably win the election. That was a "fact." What is also a "fact" is that Trump outperformed the polls. That's why people were shocked. No one would have said it is a fact that Trump was going to lose. You seem to be building a strawman and in so doing saying some really crazy and outright dangerous things.

I insist—what facts do people cling to that are ultimately lies put forward to brain wash them?

For starters, there are no "facts" related to an election or the freewill of mankind.  But okay, I'll give you a doozy to start with.  People believe that the Democrat party is the party of "peace", some would say it is a "fact".  Many people vote democrat because they believe the party is less likely to start wars.  A noble concern, but totally flawed by the numbers.  More people have died in military actions under democrat administrations than under republican administrations by a very wide margin.  While you are fact checking those numbers (and concluding that I'm right), how about the new school "facts" that smoking pot is "good for you"??  No dude, really, they've done studies man, smoking pot is like totally harmless...  Yeah, sure.  Let's move on to child rearing studies and the whole corporal punishment is equal to child abuse or how about the feminist research that categorizes all penile-vaginal sex as "rape".  If you ask those "scientists" they will call these things "fact".  Well, thank goodness, I studied physical sciences where facts are indeed rare.  For example, many would say it is a fact that the earth orbits the sun, but guess what buttercup, it actually doesn't.  The earth orbits the barycenter which is not always at the center of the sun's mass.  There are literally only a handful of actual "facts" that are universal.  Everything else is subjective.  Embrace it because realizing this leads to a much more fascinating and dynamic worldview.  If you take what society communicates, and even reaches consensus upon, as "fact" you are living within intellectual fences erected by others who don't always have your best interest at heart.

But those things don't really cut to the core of your question do they?  Here is the ultimate "fact" people on the left are clinging to that simply isn't true: That liberals are the "good" people and conservatives are all evil white racists who hate the world and everyone in it.  This one is the underlying zeitgeist that gives people on the left the smugly elite righteousness to think they have the ability to decide what are facts and what are not.  It's also the biggest flaw in the progressive agenda and the very reason why Trump won.  He didn't "outperform the polls" as you say, the polls were all wrong in the first place because the "science" they employed while polling didn't take into consideration entire populations of people.  Smart people, productive people, good and law abiding people who understand that faith in what you cannot see is vastly more powerful than the so-called facts dished into our eyes.

     
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Adami on November 26, 2016, 10:10:49 PM
Okay....

Pot does have positive benefits. I am 100% against drugs (not legally speaking) but pot has been scientifically proven to have health benefits. Denying that is just strange.

Also, I just asked all of the scientists in the world about them saying that all penis-vagina sex is rape, and they looked very very confused. All of them.


The rest of your post has nothing to do with facts. You stated a bunch of hyperbolic opinions based on pre-conceived ideas, based on general observations of others. Those aren't facts. Liberals don't state it's a fact that conservatives are all evil white racists. Some might say that evil white racists tend to be conservatives, which is generally true, but has nothing to do with the reverse of that correlation.

You might want to redefine what a "fact" is because very little of the "facts" your arguing against can even be considered to be facts.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 26, 2016, 10:24:55 PM
Okay....

Pot does have positive benefits. I am 100% against drugs (not legally speaking) but pot has been scientifically proven to have health benefits. Denying that is just strange.

Also, I just asked all of the scientists in the world about them saying that all penis-vagina sex is rape, and they looked very very confused. All of them.


The rest of your post has nothing to do with facts. You stated a bunch of hyperbolic opinions based on pre-conceived ideas, based on general observations of others. Those aren't facts. Liberals don't state it's a fact that conservatives are all evil white racists. Some might say that evil white racists tend to be conservatives, which is generally true, but has nothing to do with the reverse of that correlation.

You might want to redefine what a "fact" is because very little of the "facts" your arguing against can even be considered to be facts.


Before we take this "fact" debate any further, please familiarize yourselves with what a fact actually is:

"A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually true. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means)."

That is the Wikipedia definition, which by now should be acceptable.  Notice that non-scientific facts are checked against "experience", scientific facts are testable, observable, measurable.  Tell me, how do they determine that aspects of smoking pot are beneficial when everyone can potentially react negatively to any drug?  How about some good old anecdotal evidence.  I used to smoke pot and my life generally sucked, I quit and my life got a whole lot better.  So, given that the pot research is clearly not scientific even in it most basic hypothetical assumptions, we measure against experience.  Well, my experience tells me that the shit is really bad for people.  Also, the kids laying unbathed, in the fetal position, shaking from the "gummy bears" they've consumed in the streets of Boulder, Ashville, etc. tends to make me believe the whole movement is full of class A liberal bullshit - like much of the popular opinion "facts" I hear these days.   

Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Adami on November 26, 2016, 10:28:42 PM
How did they determine that pot has health benefits?

Multiple clinical trials.



Also, I have no clue what children eat "gummy bears" has to do with anything. Did I miss something?

And you're angry about opinions, not facts. That was my point. It's an opinion that conservatives are XYZ, no matter how much people believe it to be true.

Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 26, 2016, 10:38:42 PM
How did they determine that pot has health benefits?

Multiple clinical trials.



Also, I have no clue what children eat "gummy bears" has to do with anything. Did I miss something?

And you're angry about opinions, not facts. That was my point. It's an opinion that conservatives are XYZ, no matter how much people believe it to be true.

Granted, yes, they are opinions, but often they are argued and even called "facts".  For any study you can produce showing benefits of pot, it is equally as easy to find scientific research that shows the negatives of pot:

http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/features/is-marijuana-safe-web?page=2

So I agree, I am talking about opinion here, but only because I was asked for facts which I do not believe exist.  The people who have presented "facts" on these subjects have been debunked already.  My concern is that even after the mass debunking of literally everything related to the progressive agenda, people are still clinging to it.  It's kinda scary really.   
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Adami on November 26, 2016, 10:39:59 PM
Presenting a negative effect of pot is irrelevant to whether or not it has positive effects.

It has both.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 26, 2016, 11:00:31 PM
Presenting a negative effect of pot is irrelevant to whether or not it has positive effects.

It has both.

Then why don't the people touting the positives mention the negatives?  Maybe they do sometimes, but by the time the information goes through the media kids are getting the message "hey scientists say it's good for you, fact man, they have studies and shit."  Society is literally telling kids it is okay, even beneficial, to do drugs.  So I'd argue that it IS relevant.  There are positive aspects of alcohol, that doesn't make it good for people
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Adami on November 26, 2016, 11:02:35 PM
Once again, you're upset with people, not facts. Facts are playing no role in any of things that are upsetting you. Facts do actually exist.


Also kids smoke pot because they want to get high, not because they think it's good for them. They know it's not. They also know alcohol, cigarettes and other drugs are very bad for them. They still do it. Believe it or not, but people don't do drugs because of the liberal media.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 26, 2016, 11:18:26 PM
Once again, you're upset with people, not facts. Facts are playing no role in any of things that are upsetting you. Facts do actually exist.


Also kids smoke pot because they want to get high, not because they think it's good for them. They know it's not. They also know alcohol, cigarettes and other drugs are very bad for them. They still do it. Believe it or not, but people don't do drugs because of the liberal media.

Couple of things.  I am not upset about anything here.  Just conversing.  And you are right.  Kids are going to do it anyway, but as a parent I would appreciate a society that didn't openly advocate it.  But, we now live in a society rife with drug abuse, pedophilia, corruption and violence of unimaginable proportions.  I notice that the conservatives want that crap dealt with, even if it means hurting a few feelings along the way, while the progressives seem to wrap themselves up in humanity's folly like a comfortable blanket.  While the world is in shock and "worrying" about the future of their children, I am sighing a bit a relief and maybe, just maybe we can turn this thing around so my children and grandchildren never have to see the horrific things I have seen.

I will argue that access to drugs, especially in the legal states, is ridiculously easy.  And I have recently been to Asheville, Boulder, Dayton, and Portland all big drug towns and all are littered with unbathed, dreadlocked, unshod and black-footed, smelly, dopesick, CHILDREN.  This isn't CNN, I have seen it with my own eyes.  Meanwhile, Hillary was out there campaigning that she is worried about our children because they are hearing Donald Trump say he thinks some woman is ugly - yet stumping for open borders in national debate!  So, which is it?  You want Hills in there keeping the lines from afghan fields to the streets of USA open, or are you okay with Trump shutting that shit down?

Quick note: I know facts exist, I never said otherwise.  I simply said I don't care about them.  They are of little use to me.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Prog Snob on November 26, 2016, 11:44:11 PM
https://examine.com/supplements/Marijuana/

This article references a ton of studies done on the subject. To say it has no benefits is not only ignoring facts, but blatantly disregarding them. To say it has no downsides is doing the same thing.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 27, 2016, 12:21:54 AM
https://examine.com/supplements/Marijuana/

This article references a ton of studies done on the subject. To say it has no benefits is not only ignoring facts, but blatantly disregarding them. To say it has no downsides is doing the same thing.

So, just to be clear, I never said it had no benefits.  I was arguing against the nonfactual message that pot is "good for you" as publications like this are reporting:

http://www.idigitaltimes.com/weed-good-you-20-health-benefits-consuming-marijuana-433939

Notice the subtle question "Is pot good for you?" followed up by 20 so-called "benefits".  This is what I am talking about when I say things like "media propaganda".  Denying this propaganda doesn't exist when one google search returns thousands of examples is a true denial of an actual fact.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: PowerSlave on November 27, 2016, 12:28:10 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-wzr74d7TI

Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Prog Snob on November 27, 2016, 12:29:46 AM
https://examine.com/supplements/Marijuana/

This article references a ton of studies done on the subject. To say it has no benefits is not only ignoring facts, but blatantly disregarding them. To say it has no downsides is doing the same thing.

So, just to be clear, I never said it had no benefits.  I was arguing against the nonfactual message that pot is "good for you" as publications like this are reporting:

http://www.idigitaltimes.com/weed-good-you-20-health-benefits-consuming-marijuana-433939

Notice the subtle question "Is pot good for you?" followed up by 20 so-called "benefits".  This is what I am talking about when I say things like "media propaganda".  Denying this propaganda doesn't exist when one google search returns thousands of examples is a true denial of an actual fact.

I don't see that article as being propaganda. The first paragraph alone points out the fact that there are arguments for both sides.

Quote
How safe is marijuana? The jury is still out. While there is research suggesting weed is bad for you, there are also studies which point to health benefit.

It's pointing out that even though there is research trying to prove that it's bad for us, there are studies showing the benefits.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 27, 2016, 12:54:02 AM
Business insider is generally pretty sane.  Here they gloss over the negatives to get people primed for the coming investment opportunities in the pot industry:

http://www.businessinsider.com/health-benefits-of-medical-marijuana-2014-4

I'm a capitalist, but you won't catch me investing in dope marketed to the youth of the world.

Man, I hate it when I take a thread I started off topic.  But, I am interested in that core question I posed a few posts ago about the belief that one side are "good people" and the other side are not.  I recently heard an executive say these exact words related to an employment candidate who was considering taking a job in a more conservative company: "We'll just have to see what quality of people he wants to be associated with..."  I take huge exception to this kind of elitist thinking, and over the past year I have heard it daily coming from the left media.  "Quality of people" implies superiority.  Oddly enough this came from an Asian CEO who also told me (I am his company's interim CTO) that he hopes I am the only white male to work for his company because he values "diversity".  He happens to be one of the most staunch liberals I have ever met (and I am originally from San Francisco!), yet I have never heard such blatant racism.  Then to hear knuckleheads on CNN accuse my demographic of being racist simply because I support Trump.  Wow. So, this is the stuff I see around me daily.  Then I post on a forum like this and met with "what facts do you have that Hillary is corrupt?" when her corruption evidence is available to anyone via WikiLeaks.  It's just very scary.  Like invasion of the body snatchers or something has taken millions of reasonable, thoughtful people and turned them into people who apologize for terrorists and cop killers and drug dealers and corrupt politicians while wearing Che t-shirts and obliterating themselves on drugs while simultaneously insisting that everything be made safe and healthy.  This isn't liberalism or even the normal left.  What is happening is something completely different.  Frankly, I have noticed this type of thing getting worse and worse in parallel with society's growing acceptance of politically correct thinking.  From my perspective this is what is really scary in our nation.  Trump is the least of our worries.   
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 27, 2016, 12:56:11 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-wzr74d7TI

I'll accept that jab as long as you recognize that I'm the Picard in the conversation.  :biggrin:
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 27, 2016, 01:15:04 AM
https://examine.com/supplements/Marijuana/

This article references a ton of studies done on the subject. To say it has no benefits is not only ignoring facts, but blatantly disregarding them. To say it has no downsides is doing the same thing.

So, just to be clear, I never said it had no benefits.  I was arguing against the nonfactual message that pot is "good for you" as publications like this are reporting:

http://www.idigitaltimes.com/weed-good-you-20-health-benefits-consuming-marijuana-433939

Notice the subtle question "Is pot good for you?" followed up by 20 so-called "benefits".  This is what I am talking about when I say things like "media propaganda".  Denying this propaganda doesn't exist when one google search returns thousands of examples is a true denial of an actual fact.

I don't see that article as being propaganda. The first paragraph alone points out the fact that there are arguments for both sides.

Quote
How safe is marijuana? The jury is still out. While there is research suggesting weed is bad for you, there are also studies which point to health benefit.

It's pointing out that even though there is research trying to prove that it's bad for us, there are studies showing the benefits.

I think the part you missed was that the "benefits" they list are total bullshit.  Just look at this:

19. Creativity: There was often a stigma that marijuana makes you stupid but researchers have since found that the stereotype was based on correlational evidence, instead of cause and effect. In fact, scientists have found that those who smoke tend to be more creative.

Boy, that sounds wonderful doesn't it?  Smoking pot tends to make everyone using it more creative!  Yeah, um, no.  I think it is obvious that it completely depends on the person.  I have seen people get stoned and do masterful work, I have also seen people get stoned and be completely useless.  That is probably my biggest problem with "studies" like these.  They tend to paint with a very wide brush, yet they are fooling around with information related to people's well-being.

Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Adami on November 27, 2016, 01:19:24 AM
Vicodin is an effective pain killer.

The fact that it had no effect on me whatsoever doesn't disprove that.

Or in other words, Kadir beneath Mo Moteh.

Yea, I memory alphad that one.

I think I'm bailing out of this one now. The fun is just gone. Maybe if it comes back.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 27, 2016, 01:26:11 AM
Remember you're talking to normies, Sven. (Yes, I know that's not your real name)

I don't condone him, in case it's not obvious.

You condoned me when I was helping you with your homework that time.  :loser:
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Prog Snob on November 27, 2016, 01:28:05 AM
https://examine.com/supplements/Marijuana/

This article references a ton of studies done on the subject. To say it has no benefits is not only ignoring facts, but blatantly disregarding them. To say it has no downsides is doing the same thing.

So, just to be clear, I never said it had no benefits.  I was arguing against the nonfactual message that pot is "good for you" as publications like this are reporting:

http://www.idigitaltimes.com/weed-good-you-20-health-benefits-consuming-marijuana-433939

Notice the subtle question "Is pot good for you?" followed up by 20 so-called "benefits".  This is what I am talking about when I say things like "media propaganda".  Denying this propaganda doesn't exist when one google search returns thousands of examples is a true denial of an actual fact.

I don't see that article as being propaganda. The first paragraph alone points out the fact that there are arguments for both sides.

Quote
How safe is marijuana? The jury is still out. While there is research suggesting weed is bad for you, there are also studies which point to health benefit.

It's pointing out that even though there is research trying to prove that it's bad for us, there are studies showing the benefits.

I think the part you missed was that the "benefits" they list are total bullshit.  Just look at this:

19. Creativity: There was often a stigma that marijuana makes you stupid but researchers have since found that the stereotype was based on correlational evidence, instead of cause and effect. In fact, scientists have found that those who smoke tend to be more creative.

Boy, that sounds wonderful doesn't it?  Smoking pot tends to make everyone using it more creative!  Yeah, um, no.  I think it is obvious that it completely depends on the person.  I have seen people get stoned and do masterful work, I have also seen people get stoned and be completely useless.  That is probably my biggest problem with "studies" like these.  They tend to paint with a very wide brush, yet they are fooling around with information related to people's well-being.

How is that total bullshit? If that is indeed a benefit for some people, like you actually said, then it's not bullshit. It's not saying everyone becomes a Renaissance painter. It links to an article which refers to a study that dispels the myth that smoking automatically makes one stupid.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 27, 2016, 01:39:24 AM
https://examine.com/supplements/Marijuana/

This article references a ton of studies done on the subject. To say it has no benefits is not only ignoring facts, but blatantly disregarding them. To say it has no downsides is doing the same thing.

So, just to be clear, I never said it had no benefits.  I was arguing against the nonfactual message that pot is "good for you" as publications like this are reporting:

http://www.idigitaltimes.com/weed-good-you-20-health-benefits-consuming-marijuana-433939

Notice the subtle question "Is pot good for you?" followed up by 20 so-called "benefits".  This is what I am talking about when I say things like "media propaganda".  Denying this propaganda doesn't exist when one google search returns thousands of examples is a true denial of an actual fact.

I don't see that article as being propaganda. The first paragraph alone points out the fact that there are arguments for both sides.

Quote
How safe is marijuana? The jury is still out. While there is research suggesting weed is bad for you, there are also studies which point to health benefit.

It's pointing out that even though there is research trying to prove that it's bad for us, there are studies showing the benefits.

I think the part you missed was that the "benefits" they list are total bullshit.  Just look at this:

19. Creativity: There was often a stigma that marijuana makes you stupid but researchers have since found that the stereotype was based on correlational evidence, instead of cause and effect. In fact, scientists have found that those who smoke tend to be more creative.

Boy, that sounds wonderful doesn't it?  Smoking pot tends to make everyone using it more creative!  Yeah, um, no.  I think it is obvious that it completely depends on the person.  I have seen people get stoned and do masterful work, I have also seen people get stoned and be completely useless.  That is probably my biggest problem with "studies" like these.  They tend to paint with a very wide brush, yet they are fooling around with information related to people's well-being.

How is that total bullshit? If that is indeed a benefit for some people, like you actually said, then it's not bullshit. It's not saying everyone becomes a Renaissance painter. It links to an article which refers to a study that dispels the myth that smoking automatically makes one stupid.

I can't stay up all night explaining how the pseudoscience of psychology assesses creativity, how I think it's definitely bullshit, because I'd probably just get called a science denier for saying it.  In fact, I love science, but it has been watered down to the point where even pot being an enhancement drug is considered "fact".  It's okay, you can believe pot is good for you, I can believe it isn't.  You find value in the studies that show its benefits, I find value in the studies that show its problems.  As I said above, I fall back on my own experiences and as a former pot smoker I have nothing good to report.  As a parent, I just wish society would stop looking for the next escapist high to push on kids and start looking to improve the life and environment we have in reality.
 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: PowerSlave on November 27, 2016, 01:48:05 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-wzr74d7TI

I'll accept that jab as long as you recognize that I'm the Picard in the conversation.  :biggrin:

I had a long response typed up, but it came off as being preachy. I'll summarize it.

No, you're not Picard in this situation. He spent the entire episode that was referenced trying to bridge a gap in understanding and communication. I dig the fact that you're willing to stick to your guns, but some of the language you've been using is inflammatory. While I'm sure that you pride yourself for being anti-PC, you've managed to put most of the people that you're trying to have a conversation with on the defensive. It's not conducive to discussion.

Something that does confuse me is your willingness to co-op the Libertarian vote as conservative in the beginning of this thread, but you're so quick to demonize them when one of their core-tenets runs contrary to your beliefs. Yes, this is in reference to marijuana legalization.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 27, 2016, 02:01:31 AM
Vicodin is an effective pain killer.

The fact that it had no effect on me whatsoever doesn't disprove that.


Drugs affect people differently.  That is actually a scientific fact.  Many factors go into it ranging from body temperature to age, to gender, to genetics.  So when a publication promotes a drug, prescription or recreational, they are being irresponsible.  Look at this quote from High Times:

Interestingly, the study also concluded, “daily cannabis consumption does not significantly impair executive functions among young users, not even in users with age of onset before 15 years old.”

Wow, get some kids stoned and see if it causes them executive function deficiency!  Yeah, that sounds like a great idea.

Seriously, even the big pharma legal catchalls like "results may vary" and "please talk to your doctor about..." and "people with (X) should not take (Y) when (Z)" all show that people don't really know what the fuck is going to happen when someone takes drugs.  That other study I linked said pot helps depression and anxiety disorders!  Yet there are reputable studies that claim pot smoking *causes* depression and anxiety disorders.  Who are we to believe in the age of instant information from unchecked sources?  High times or WebMD?
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 27, 2016, 02:22:43 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-wzr74d7TI

I'll accept that jab as long as you recognize that I'm the Picard in the conversation.  :biggrin:

I had a long response typed up, but it came off as being preachy. I'll summarize it.

No, you're not Picard in this situation. He spent the entire episode that was referenced trying to bridge a gap in understanding and communication. I dig the fact that you're willing to stick to your guns, but some of the language you've been using is inflammatory. While I'm sure that you pride yourself for being anti-PC, you've managed to put most of the people that you're trying to have a conversation with on the defensive. It's not conducive to discussion.

Something that does confuse me is your willingness to co-op the Libertarian vote as conservative in the beginning of this thread, but you're so quick to demonize them when one of their core-tenets runs contrary to your beliefs. Yes, this is in reference to marijuana legalization.

Couple of things.  Thanks for the thoughtful response.  I have been trying to bridge a gap in understanding and communication.  Maybe I am not succeeding much, but I think it took Picard some time to figure out how to communicate with Darmok too. :-)

I don't think I attacked legalization.  I think I was more attacking Hillary's focus on non-issues while children lay in our streets fucked up on ultra concentrated dope manufactured to look like candy.  I grew out of recreationals decades ago, but I respect people's right and need to catch a buzz now and then so I am not a big fan of criminalization either.  It just really disturbs me to see so many young people fucked up on dope.

As for inflammatory remarks, being antiPC, and conducive to discussion.  I have found that with many these days the only way to be conducive with discussion is to toe the progressive line and filter all thoughts and speech through the appropriate PC filters.  I prefer to just stay true to myself and express things as I really see them.  I hope that doesn't offend anyone, but then again, these days just being a white male conservative is offensive to many so what can I do besides stick to my principles and offer those principles to others as food for thought?     
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Prog Snob on November 27, 2016, 04:23:31 AM
Vicodin is an effective pain killer.

The fact that it had no effect on me whatsoever doesn't disprove that.


It used to have an effect on me. Sadly, that is no longer the case. Oxycodone hasn't worked either. I feel like I need to get the real stuff to feel that high again.  :xbones
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Adami on November 27, 2016, 04:42:17 PM
So apparently Trump tweeted that he actually won the popular vote as well, but it only looks like he lost it due to millions of illegal votes.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Prog Snob on November 27, 2016, 04:46:32 PM
You mean the votes were rigged or they were votes by illegal immigrants?   :biggrin:
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Adami on November 27, 2016, 04:48:46 PM
You mean the votes were rigged or they were votes by illegal immigrants?   :biggrin:

Dunno.

"In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally."

Going to be an interesting four years.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Prog Snob on November 27, 2016, 05:04:54 PM
There isn't enough popcorn to eat as we lay in waiting.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on November 28, 2016, 08:22:20 AM
The fact that an institution like the NYT can be blatantly dismissed as lying, left-wing propaganda in favor of intuition, experience, and "common sense" is genuinely terrifying, as is the assumption that we no longer need to fact check because the facts are bow lies.


Any chance we can stop using "terrifying" as a synonym for "I don't like it"?    I've been terrified maybe twice, three times in my life, and NOTHING - not the week before when I would have bet my car that Hillary would have won, not the night of when Trump was declared the presumptive winner, not when Steve Bannon was named to the cabinet - even comes REMOTELY close to that feeling. 

I get it; some of us don't like the outcome, and some of us have worries now that certain things you might consider "progress" might be undone.   I'm understanding and respectful of that.  But this complete and utter usurping of the word "TERRIFYING" is getting to be a little much.   
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on November 28, 2016, 08:25:47 AM
But this complete and utter usurping of the word is getting to be a little much.

It's terrifying, if I'm being honest.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on November 28, 2016, 08:33:09 AM

Also, can not even the more conservative people on the forums—Stadler, Bosk, whomever—recognize how dangerous this thought process is?


What am I supposed to recognize?  I don't take it anywhere to 7th's apparent level, but I don't trust any one particular news source, and I CERTAINLY don't trust - without some corroboration, context, and nuance - any one candidate. 

I certainly think - without question, and this goes for both sides - that people are far more apt to arrive at the conclusion first, then find the information that supports it rather than amass information from competing sources and arrive at a suitable conclusion. 

Again, I don't like to use "conspiracy" and "lying" without some specific context, but I do absolutely think that we've become more free with the substitution of "substantiated opinion" in for "hard fact" and to our detriment.  We've also become more willing to accept simplistic solutions to complex and perhaps even unsolvable problems.   Poverty?  MINIMUM WAGE!   Immigration?  WALL!  We've also become accustomed to substituting artificial metrics in for proof of efficacy:   ACA?  MORE PEOPLE INSURED! (With no qualitative analysis whatsoever).   Election Integrity?  POPULAR VOTE! (With no understanding that it is in no way the measure of what the outcome should be; it's akin to saying "Well, Genesis "We Can't Dance" is 72 minutes, and Self-titled is 42 minutes, therefore WCD is objectively better!")
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Adami on November 28, 2016, 10:26:25 AM
The fact that an institution like the NYT can be blatantly dismissed as lying, left-wing propaganda in favor of intuition, experience, and "common sense" is genuinely terrifying, as is the assumption that we no longer need to fact check because the facts are bow lies.


Any chance we can stop using "terrifying" as a synonym for "I don't like it"?    I've been terrified maybe twice, three times in my life, and NOTHING - not the week before when I would have bet my car that Hillary would have won, not the night of when Trump was declared the presumptive winner, not when Steve Bannon was named to the cabinet - even comes REMOTELY close to that feeling. 

I get it; some of us don't like the outcome, and some of us have worries now that certain things you might consider "progress" might be undone.   I'm understanding and respectful of that.  But this complete and utter usurping of the word "TERRIFYING" is getting to be a little much.


I say this with all due respect, but one possible reason you don't see any of it as terrifying is because as a straight, white, well enough off male, none of those terrifying things have any impact on you.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 28, 2016, 11:19:19 AM
The fact that an institution like the NYT can be blatantly dismissed as lying, left-wing propaganda in favor of intuition, experience, and "common sense" is genuinely terrifying, as is the assumption that we no longer need to fact check because the facts are bow lies.


Any chance we can stop using "terrifying" as a synonym for "I don't like it"?    I've been terrified maybe twice, three times in my life, and NOTHING - not the week before when I would have bet my car that Hillary would have won, not the night of when Trump was declared the presumptive winner, not when Steve Bannon was named to the cabinet - even comes REMOTELY close to that feeling. 

I get it; some of us don't like the outcome, and some of us have worries now that certain things you might consider "progress" might be undone.   I'm understanding and respectful of that.  But this complete and utter usurping of the word "TERRIFYING" is getting to be a little much.


I say this with all due respect, but one possible reason you don't see any of it as terrifying is because as a straight, white, well enough off male, none of those terrifying things have any impact on you.

But isn't that a racist, classist, heterophobic view?  Straight white well-off conservative males have plenty to be afraid of in our society.  Especially now that the left has effectively painted that demographic as "bad people" who "should not exist". 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Adami on November 28, 2016, 11:24:12 AM
The fact that an institution like the NYT can be blatantly dismissed as lying, left-wing propaganda in favor of intuition, experience, and "common sense" is genuinely terrifying, as is the assumption that we no longer need to fact check because the facts are bow lies.


Any chance we can stop using "terrifying" as a synonym for "I don't like it"?    I've been terrified maybe twice, three times in my life, and NOTHING - not the week before when I would have bet my car that Hillary would have won, not the night of when Trump was declared the presumptive winner, not when Steve Bannon was named to the cabinet - even comes REMOTELY close to that feeling. 

I get it; some of us don't like the outcome, and some of us have worries now that certain things you might consider "progress" might be undone.   I'm understanding and respectful of that.  But this complete and utter usurping of the word "TERRIFYING" is getting to be a little much.


I say this with all due respect, but one possible reason you don't see any of it as terrifying is because as a straight, white, well enough off male, none of those terrifying things have any impact on you.

But isn't that a racist, classist, heterophobic view?

No.

Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 28, 2016, 12:03:27 PM
The fact that an institution like the NYT can be blatantly dismissed as lying, left-wing propaganda in favor of intuition, experience, and "common sense" is genuinely terrifying, as is the assumption that we no longer need to fact check because the facts are bow lies.


Any chance we can stop using "terrifying" as a synonym for "I don't like it"?    I've been terrified maybe twice, three times in my life, and NOTHING - not the week before when I would have bet my car that Hillary would have won, not the night of when Trump was declared the presumptive winner, not when Steve Bannon was named to the cabinet - even comes REMOTELY close to that feeling. 

I get it; some of us don't like the outcome, and some of us have worries now that certain things you might consider "progress" might be undone.   I'm understanding and respectful of that.  But this complete and utter usurping of the word "TERRIFYING" is getting to be a little much.


I say this with all due respect, but one possible reason you don't see any of it as terrifying is because as a straight, white, well enough off male, none of those terrifying things have any impact on you.

But isn't that a racist, classist, heterophobic view?

No.

Um, yes it is, and the fact that you cannot see that is what's really frightening.  It's also part of the reason why Trump is moving into the white house.  We cannot have unity in our salad bowl nation if people are always assuming one special interest has it better than the next.  I think it is clear that the rich have it better than the poor, but not always, beyond that, we all have the same basic opportunities and barriers given our own genetic advantages and disadvantages.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: hefdaddy42 on November 28, 2016, 12:04:30 PM
No it's not.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on November 28, 2016, 12:25:29 PM
No.

+1

No it's not.

+1
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Skeever on November 28, 2016, 12:40:44 PM
Yeah... I'm straight, white, and male, come from a pretty blue collar, working man's background - Dad drives a big rig, Mom is a special needs teacher. I wasn't eligible for any assistance getting into college due to the white color of my skin. I didn't get free books. I didn't get a supplemented cell phone. My family could have really used all those things. When I graduated didn't get to check an affirmative action box when applying for a job. I could have really used that.

I don't think I can properly articulate how much better I still had it because of who I am. Yes, my family could have always used more help, but the advantages of being white far outweighed any "advantage" others got due to being eligible for government programs. It took my a long time to acknowledge it, but once you take some time to visit the other side of the tracks, the truth isn't very pretty. When you've done that, you see that these programs people like myself have come to resent so much are more like a "consolidation prize" than an "advantage". That's the ugly truth when generational poverty cycles overwhelmingly affect one race. It's the difference between living tough times and simply navigating through them from time to time, like my family did.

Unfortunately, our political situation allows working class people of all races to turn on one another rather than uniting behind common goals.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Adami on November 28, 2016, 02:20:36 PM
The fact that an institution like the NYT can be blatantly dismissed as lying, left-wing propaganda in favor of intuition, experience, and "common sense" is genuinely terrifying, as is the assumption that we no longer need to fact check because the facts are bow lies.


Any chance we can stop using "terrifying" as a synonym for "I don't like it"?    I've been terrified maybe twice, three times in my life, and NOTHING - not the week before when I would have bet my car that Hillary would have won, not the night of when Trump was declared the presumptive winner, not when Steve Bannon was named to the cabinet - even comes REMOTELY close to that feeling. 

I get it; some of us don't like the outcome, and some of us have worries now that certain things you might consider "progress" might be undone.   I'm understanding and respectful of that.  But this complete and utter usurping of the word "TERRIFYING" is getting to be a little much.


I say this with all due respect, but one possible reason you don't see any of it as terrifying is because as a straight, white, well enough off male, none of those terrifying things have any impact on you.

But isn't that a racist, classist, heterophobic view?

No.

Um, yes it is, and the fact that you cannot see that is what's really frightening.  It's also part of the reason why Trump is moving into the white house.  We cannot have unity in our salad bowl nation if people are always assuming one special interest has it better than the next.  I think it is clear that the rich have it better than the poor, but not always, beyond that, we all have the same basic opportunities and barriers given our own genetic advantages and disadvantages.


Well....

The reasons people are terrified are due to what Trump and his team have said about minorities, specifically blacks, latinos, immigrants (both legal and illegal), muslims, Jews, women and LGBT folk. Whether or not he actually makes life worse for them is up in the air, but those are the reasons people are generally terrified (not counting the people who think he'll nuke someone). So since none of that stuff directly effects white middle class Christian men, they are less likely to be terrified.

It's not racist to say that white etc etc people likely won't be nearly as impacted as others.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: PowerSlave on November 28, 2016, 02:27:35 PM
It's not racist to say that white etc etc people likely won't be nearly as impacted as others.

Unless they have PTSD...
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 73109 on November 28, 2016, 03:49:30 PM
I am a straight white dude who will probably end up solidly in the upper middle class. That being said, I feel confident in using the word terrifying—something I don't use lightly (I haven't said it at all concerning Trump's campaign)—because the way 7th talks is a reflection of a shift in society that, I feel, will, if it takes hold, undermine the order and stability of civil society. Facts are facts. It's as simple as that. People can discuss facts with bias but the outright rejection of the notion of facts as leftist propaganda is genuinely scary. I fear for a society where people refuse to appreciate the severity of situations like climate change. I fear for a society where communication is impossible because one side rejects everything the other side says as lies and conspiracy—this is certainly a more right-wing phenomenon today.

Ultimately, I genuinely fear for political, ecological, economic, and societal collapse. I don't think Trump is going to bring that about. But a certain section of his supporters—with their complete disregard for the way things actually are—absolutely could.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 28, 2016, 03:56:08 PM

Well....

The reasons people are terrified are due to what Trump and his team have said about minorities, specifically blacks, latinos, immigrants (both legal and illegal), muslims, Jews, women and LGBT folk. Whether or not he actually makes life worse for them is up in the air, but those are the reasons people are generally terrified (not counting the people who think he'll nuke someone). So since none of that stuff directly effects white middle class Christian men, they are less likely to be terrified.

It's not racist to say that white etc etc people likely won't be nearly as impacted as others.


Hmmm...  So I guess those people in sanctuary cities who's pretty white daughters were slain by illegal immigrants, only to have the murderers treated like victims by the law, have nothing to fear huh?  Adversity doesn't discriminate!  Right now somewhere there is a black kid chomping on Captain Crunch while somewhere else a white kid is going hungry.  The point where genetics are injected into the idea is the point where the idea becomes racist.   

Look, I understand it is popular to lend credit to ideas like white privilege and rape culture and all that academic jazz.  Nor do I minimize racial/gender issues, discrimination or abuses to people at all.  I actually care a great deal about seeing a world where these awful behaviors are rare.  I just believe that in practice the solution is to assume total equality across the board and not to establish implied imbalances like assumed "privilege".  Privilege is really a socioeconomic phenomenon, not a racial, gender, or religious phenomenon.  The only reason people believe it is would be that they view the world through special interest glasses where "that guy got the job because he's white", or "that guy is a successful doctor because he's Jewish", or "the reason why inner city kids are at a disadvantage is because they are black".  None of these things are true, but those nasty special interest glasses make it seem like they are.


     
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Adami on November 28, 2016, 04:01:48 PM
I clarified a point. Whether or not you got it or agree with it can't be helped.

Of course your post in general is an example of white privilege. Anyway. I'll keep reading but I'm not going to argue white privlidge with you.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 28, 2016, 07:06:41 PM
I clarified a point. Whether or not you got it or agree with it can't be helped.

Of course your post in general is an example of white privilege. Anyway. I'll keep reading but I'm not going to argue white privlidge with you.

So you are admitting it doesn't exist right?  Just because some professor, who hates western society and white people, concludes that something exists does not make it so.  White privilege is make believe, but academic activists posing as educators would have us consider it a "fact".  We have to start spitting this bullshit back into their faces if we ever want equality for everyone in our society.  Promoting one race as privileged is about the most racist initiative I have seen in my lifetime.   
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Prog Snob on November 28, 2016, 08:40:12 PM
If blacks, and others, are so tired of this white privilege, maybe they should stop listening to people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson...and the liberal media. They're nothing but race baiters. They contribute to a problem that's already there. They're not doing anything to help. Their capitalizing on something that needs to be alleviated, not amplified. Whatever was said that was so racist was probably something that was blown way out of proportion, like everything else in the media.

Yeah... I'm straight, white, and male, come from a pretty blue collar, working man's background - Dad drives a big rig, Mom is a special needs teacher. I wasn't eligible for any assistance getting into college due to the white color of my skin. I didn't get free books. I didn't get a supplemented cell phone. My family could have really used all those things. When I graduated didn't get to check an affirmative action box when applying for a job. I could have really used that.

I don't think I can properly articulate how much better I still had it because of who I am. Yes, my family could have always used more help, but the advantages of being white far outweighed any "advantage" others got due to being eligible for government programs. It took my a long time to acknowledge it, but once you take some time to visit the other side of the tracks, the truth isn't very pretty. When you've done that, you see that these programs people like myself have come to resent so much are more like a "consolidation prize" than an "advantage". That's the ugly truth when generational poverty cycles overwhelmingly affect one race. It's the difference between living tough times and simply navigating through them from time to time, like my family did.

Unfortunately, our political situation allows working class people of all races to turn on one another rather than uniting behind common goals.

With all due respect, all of that sounds ridiculous. Why don't you go to the Appalachian regions and talk about white privilege? Tell them they don't have a right to feel repressed and withdrawn. There are tens of millions of people in those areas, most of whom are white. You act like because it's not shoved in your face that it doesn't exist. Many of those families live without running water.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 28, 2016, 10:02:19 PM
If blacks, and others, are so tired of this white privilege, maybe they should stop listening to people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson...and the liberal media. They're nothing but race baiters. They contribute to a problem that's already there. They're not doing anything to help. Their capitalizing on something that needs to be alleviated, not amplified. Whatever was said that was so racist was probably something that was blown way out of proportion, like everything else in the media.

Yeah... I'm straight, white, and male, come from a pretty blue collar, working man's background - Dad drives a big rig, Mom is a special needs teacher. I wasn't eligible for any assistance getting into college due to the white color of my skin. I didn't get free books. I didn't get a supplemented cell phone. My family could have really used all those things. When I graduated didn't get to check an affirmative action box when applying for a job. I could have really used that.

I don't think I can properly articulate how much better I still had it because of who I am. Yes, my family could have always used more help, but the advantages of being white far outweighed any "advantage" others got due to being eligible for government programs. It took my a long time to acknowledge it, but once you take some time to visit the other side of the tracks, the truth isn't very pretty. When you've done that, you see that these programs people like myself have come to resent so much are more like a "consolidation prize" than an "advantage". That's the ugly truth when generational poverty cycles overwhelmingly affect one race. It's the difference between living tough times and simply navigating through them from time to time, like my family did.

Unfortunately, our political situation allows working class people of all races to turn on one another rather than uniting behind common goals.

With all due respect, all of that sounds ridiculous. Why don't you go to the Appalachian regions and talk about white privilege? Tell them they don't have a right to feel repressed and withdrawn. There are tens of millions of people in those areas, most of whom are white. You act like because it's not shoved in your face that it doesn't exist. Many of those families live without running water.

I live in Appalachia after spending much of my life in San Francisco.  Once I got over the culture shock and harsh realities like liver mush, I realized these people are about the most misunderstood people in the USA.  I heard more racist shit in California than I have ever heard here.  The culture here is actually very laid back, low stress, everyone is welcome sort of living.  It pisses me off that some folks in the urban areas consider these people inferior.  I'll tell ya, if shit ever hits the fan these people are the ones who know how to live off the grid and take care of business without a nanny state taking care of them.  Yes, many of them are poor.  Actually, I have been all over the world and the Native American reservations in the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Montana combine with the Appalachian poor are living WAY harder than those in city welfare classes.  Why no support from the left for these people?  How exactly is white privilege helping a family of 8 living in a singewide somewhere in West Virginia?  What good for the Native Americans does the Billions in drug and skin money that keeps many inner city folks in Mercedes and Crystal do??  Seriously, the holier than thou leftists who think they are champions for the downtrodden and weak don't even know who the sufferers are in our world.  Sorry if I am a bit too hyperbolic but it's fucking true.  If I hear another rich-ass college frat boy talk about white privilege I may simply vapor lock.     
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Skeever on November 29, 2016, 05:21:18 AM
If blacks, and others, are so tired of this white privilege, maybe they should stop listening to people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson...and the liberal media. They're nothing but race baiters. They contribute to a problem that's already there. They're not doing anything to help. Their capitalizing on something that needs to be alleviated, not amplified. Whatever was said that was so racist was probably something that was blown way out of proportion, like everything else in the media.

Yeah... I'm straight, white, and male, come from a pretty blue collar, working man's background - Dad drives a big rig, Mom is a special needs teacher. I wasn't eligible for any assistance getting into college due to the white color of my skin. I didn't get free books. I didn't get a supplemented cell phone. My family could have really used all those things. When I graduated didn't get to check an affirmative action box when applying for a job. I could have really used that.

I don't think I can properly articulate how much better I still had it because of who I am. Yes, my family could have always used more help, but the advantages of being white far outweighed any "advantage" others got due to being eligible for government programs. It took my a long time to acknowledge it, but once you take some time to visit the other side of the tracks, the truth isn't very pretty. When you've done that, you see that these programs people like myself have come to resent so much are more like a "consolidation prize" than an "advantage". That's the ugly truth when generational poverty cycles overwhelmingly affect one race. It's the difference between living tough times and simply navigating through them from time to time, like my family did.

Unfortunately, our political situation allows working class people of all races to turn on one another rather than uniting behind common goals.

With all due respect, all of that sounds ridiculous. Why don't you go to the Appalachian regions and talk about white privilege? Tell them they don't have a right to feel repressed and withdrawn. There are tens of millions of people in those areas, most of whom are white. You act like because it's not shoved in your face that it doesn't exist. Many of those families live without running water.

What your missing is that privilege is not just a racial thing. There's racial privilege, gender privilege, financial privilege, and so on. What it means to be "of x privilege" is to say that you're not at a disadvantage because you possess x. So, like the people in Appalachia, there are people that can be be extremely disadvantaged financially, but still benefiting from racial privilege. Then there are of course people of color who do not possess any white privilege, but are also not suffering from financial disadvantages that many whites may be. This is called intersectionality, and it's what makes talking about these topics so difficulty. It's not enough to just talk about one type of privilege or another. We have to talk about racism, sexism, gender, and economics all at once.

Appalachia is an interesting topic because there are a lot of large scale things hurting a very particular population. Poverty in this country is not unique to people of color, and I'll be the first to admit that liberals  like myself do a very bad job of talking about poverty in general. However, the other problem we have in this country, is poverty cycles that overwhelmingly affect one specific racial group, and have for generations. That can't be ignored. So, of course, I want to see things done to combat poverty, period. But broad measures are not going to be enough to help the group that has had the most people stuck in poverty for over 100 years. There needs to be more.

I live in Appalachia after spending much of my life in San Francisco.  Once I got over the culture shock and harsh realities like liver mush, I realized these people are about the most misunderstood people in the USA.  I heard more racist shit in California than I have ever heard here.  The culture here is actually very laid back, low stress, everyone is welcome sort of living.  It pisses me off that some folks in the urban areas consider these people inferior.  I'll tell ya, if shit ever hits the fan these people are the ones who know how to live off the grid and take care of business without a nanny state taking care of them.  Yes, many of them are poor.  Actually, I have been all over the world and the Native American reservations in the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Montana combine with the Appalachian poor are living WAY harder than those in city welfare classes.  Why no support from the left for these people?  How exactly is white privilege helping a family of 8 living in a singewide somewhere in West Virginia?  What good for the Native Americans does the Billions in drug and skin money that keeps many inner city folks in Mercedes and Crystal do??  Seriously, the holier than thou leftists who think they are champions for the downtrodden and weak don't even know who the sufferers are in our world.  Sorry if I am a bit too hyperbolic but it's fucking true.  If I hear another rich-ass college frat boy talk about white privilege I may simply vapor lock.     
The bold part of this post is all I care to address. See the above, my response to Prog Snob, as a lot of it answers these points. Look, I'll be the first to admit that we need to do a better job of addressing poverty in general and that democrats have done an increasingly bad job with this. I know how snobby it sounds when well-off people from great schools minimize the problems that working class people have. So yeah, you got it.

But there's another problem, that goes beyond poverty, and it's an onslaught of social and economic disadvantages that overwhelmingly and disproportionately affect certain groups, and there is more data than you could ever need to back that claim up. So, yes, we need to do more to address root causes of poverty in general. Beyond that, we need to address how an unbreakable cycle of poverty has affected a specific group.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Prog Snob on November 29, 2016, 05:38:14 AM
If blacks, and others, are so tired of this white privilege, maybe they should stop listening to people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson...and the liberal media. They're nothing but race baiters. They contribute to a problem that's already there. They're not doing anything to help. Their capitalizing on something that needs to be alleviated, not amplified. Whatever was said that was so racist was probably something that was blown way out of proportion, like everything else in the media.

Yeah... I'm straight, white, and male, come from a pretty blue collar, working man's background - Dad drives a big rig, Mom is a special needs teacher. I wasn't eligible for any assistance getting into college due to the white color of my skin. I didn't get free books. I didn't get a supplemented cell phone. My family could have really used all those things. When I graduated didn't get to check an affirmative action box when applying for a job. I could have really used that.

I don't think I can properly articulate how much better I still had it because of who I am. Yes, my family could have always used more help, but the advantages of being white far outweighed any "advantage" others got due to being eligible for government programs. It took my a long time to acknowledge it, but once you take some time to visit the other side of the tracks, the truth isn't very pretty. When you've done that, you see that these programs people like myself have come to resent so much are more like a "consolidation prize" than an "advantage". That's the ugly truth when generational poverty cycles overwhelmingly affect one race. It's the difference between living tough times and simply navigating through them from time to time, like my family did.

Unfortunately, our political situation allows working class people of all races to turn on one another rather than uniting behind common goals.

With all due respect, all of that sounds ridiculous. Why don't you go to the Appalachian regions and talk about white privilege? Tell them they don't have a right to feel repressed and withdrawn. There are tens of millions of people in those areas, most of whom are white. You act like because it's not shoved in your face that it doesn't exist. Many of those families live without running water.

What your missing is that privilege is not just a racial thing. There's racial privilege, gender privilege, financial privilege, and so on. What it means to be "of x privilege" is to say that you're not at a disadvantage because you possess x. So, like the people in Appalachia, there are people that can be be extremely disadvantaged financially, but still benefiting from racial privilege. Then there are of course people of color who do not possess any white privilege, but are also not suffering from financial disadvantages that many whites may be. This is called intersectionality, and it's what makes talking about these topics so difficulty. It's not enough to just talk about one type of privilege or another. We have to talk about racism, sexism, gender, and economics all at once.

Appalachia is an interesting topic because there are a lot of large scale things hurting a very particular population. Poverty in this country is not unique to people of color, and I'll be the first to admit that liberals  like myself do a very bad job of talking about poverty in general. However, the other problem we have in this country, is poverty cycles that overwhelmingly affect one specific racial group, and have for generations. That can't be ignored. So, of course, I want to see things done to combat poverty, period. But broad measures are not going to be enough to help the group that has had the most people stuck in poverty for over 100 years. There needs to be more.


I'm not missing the privilege issue and I'm not sure why you're trying to educate me on the different types of privilege. I'm not the one biased here. I'm pretty sure you're the one who went off on this white privilege tirade. When you do the same for everything else, then we can talk.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Skeever on November 29, 2016, 06:31:08 AM
My intent isn't to sound like I'm going off on a tirade. I've tried simply to lay out my points in an understandable way, and am sorry to see you think I'm talking down to you. I'm not, I just understand what it's like to be on both sides of this issue. Is there any particular point about my post that you'd like me to discuss? Hard to defend what I've said against the general dismissal you've offered.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on November 29, 2016, 09:05:49 AM
The fact that an institution like the NYT can be blatantly dismissed as lying, left-wing propaganda in favor of intuition, experience, and "common sense" is genuinely terrifying, as is the assumption that we no longer need to fact check because the facts are bow lies.


Any chance we can stop using "terrifying" as a synonym for "I don't like it"?    I've been terrified maybe twice, three times in my life, and NOTHING - not the week before when I would have bet my car that Hillary would have won, not the night of when Trump was declared the presumptive winner, not when Steve Bannon was named to the cabinet - even comes REMOTELY close to that feeling. 

I get it; some of us don't like the outcome, and some of us have worries now that certain things you might consider "progress" might be undone.   I'm understanding and respectful of that.  But this complete and utter usurping of the word "TERRIFYING" is getting to be a little much.


I say this with all due respect, but one possible reason you don't see any of it as terrifying is because as a straight, white, well enough off male, none of those terrifying things have any impact on you.

Okay... I recognize there are about 15 posts after this that I haven't read, but I'm going to suggest that that's a road we do NOT want to go down.  Because then everything that Bruce, Katy Perry, etc. says about the "blue collar man" is bullshit.   That means that gays, blacks and women ARE different, even though we've spend 50 years claiming that "WE'RE ALL THE SAME ON THE INSIDE!"   

Please.   

The one thing I'll give you (and it sounds WAYYYYYY more arrogant than I mean it) is that it's not terrifying to me because I a) actually understand how this stuff works, and b) don't have an agenda that I need to garner support for.   
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Implode on November 29, 2016, 09:11:24 AM
Because then everything that Bruce, Katy Perry, etc. says about the "blue collar man" is bullshit.   That means that gays, blacks and women ARE different, even though we've spend 50 years claiming that "WE'RE ALL THE SAME ON THE INSIDE!"   

No. It means they are treated differently despite that they are "the same on the inside".


And @7th, we can discuss the extent to which privilege affects all these issues, but privilege is not make believe. It's 100% reality despite the fact that you hear about it in the "liberal media". Have you ever gotten pulled over by a cop and then asked to have your car searched because you were white? How many times have you been "randomly" selected for extra security checks in the airport because you were white? We can argue about the reasons this exists, and the morality/implications, etc., but it exists. People are systematically treated differently based on what they look like or how they sound. It's that simple. You can't deny it.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on November 29, 2016, 09:24:30 AM
Yeah... I'm straight, white, and male, come from a pretty blue collar, working man's background - Dad drives a big rig, Mom is a special needs teacher. I wasn't eligible for any assistance getting into college due to the white color of my skin. I didn't get free books. I didn't get a supplemented cell phone. My family could have really used all those things. When I graduated didn't get to check an affirmative action box when applying for a job. I could have really used that.

I don't think I can properly articulate how much better I still had it because of who I am. Yes, my family could have always used more help, but the advantages of being white far outweighed any "advantage" others got due to being eligible for government programs. It took my a long time to acknowledge it, but once you take some time to visit the other side of the tracks, the truth isn't very pretty. When you've done that, you see that these programs people like myself have come to resent so much are more like a "consolidation prize" than an "advantage". That's the ugly truth when generational poverty cycles overwhelmingly affect one race. It's the difference between living tough times and simply navigating through them from time to time, like my family did.

Unfortunately, our political situation allows working class people of all races to turn on one another rather than uniting behind common goals.

But you're assuming two things:  that it WAS because of the "whiteness" of your skin, and b) that it is good that ANYONE gets those things because of the color of your skin.  That's I think where 7th is coming from (though I want to be clear, I don't speak for him and don't necessarily agree with where he's coming from).   

There's a lot of other variables in this that you're conveniently glossing over in an effort to put forth your idea.   My dad is 77 now, and as he gets to that age, he's remarkably becoming MORE fluent in Polish, a language he spoke fluently (for a kid that age) until he went to school.  He had older sisters, so the family house was "English", but at family gatherings, it was Polish.  Why?  Because it wasn't about "national identity", it was about "what's going to help me succeed".    Both my sets of grandparents barely spoke to each other at the time they finally passed.  I remember asking my Mom about that just before I got married the first time, and she was blunt:  they didn't love each other as much as they needed each other to survive.   My uncle left the house at 17, because he and his father (my grandfather) didn't get along.   What did he do?  Air Force.  Why?  Because it was a way to support himself and his (future) family.   Not "supplemental cellphones".  When I went to college - state school, because I couldn't afford anything better - I worked digging ditches in the summer to pay for it. I ate ketchup and mustard sandwiches at times, collected the McDonald's Monopoly pieces when they played that game, and would go to Huskies to hustle billiards for the beer I drank (Some nights, my roommate Craig and I would go with $5 between us, and play pool and drink quarts all night long).  We had 9 guys in a two-bedroom apartment (each building had a building number and four units, A, B, C, and D; ours was "3D" and was forever referred to as "Three Dump" for obvious reasons).

I would argue to you that the things you DIDN'T get made you better, made you more resilient, and was the real advantage at the end of the day.  I get it; on an individual basis that means some individuals are going to fail, and on an individual basis, there is anecdotal evidence to support any position you want, but if you look at the GROUP, the evidence seems to suggest that safety nets and supplements don't help in the long run, but tend to BECOME the solution. 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Skeever on November 29, 2016, 10:03:37 AM
Stadler - I don't think we disagree, per say. I don't think I'm glossing over anything to make my point, which is not about safety nets, but rather about how I do not see being white working class as equivalent to being part of group that has experienced longstanding discrimination and generational poverty. I look at it in terms of percentages. Even given the economic situation of my parents, I was born with a certain percentage chance that I'd have parents who were together, a community that was largely safe, a good public school system (that was safe), parents who would be able to afford my needs, parents who would be able to pay for me to go to college, parents who would be able to buy me things I needed to get a start.  In reality, only some of these things ever came true for me, and many didn't. But as a general rule, for a person of color born on the same day as me in a similar economic situation, those percentages were all likely much lower. Why? It's not due to a genetic difference. There's a whole complicated slew of socioeconomic issues that get glossed over by Facebook memes.

As far as safety nets go, the discussion for me isn't about whether or not we need safety nets. The discussion is more along the lines of "what should that safety net look like?" I think your hitting on a greater truth - the safety net ought not to give more than one can go out and earn, because then it does become "the solution". Are we at that point now? Perhaps in some ways. But maybe there are facets of poverty we aren't tackling at all - let's say, healthcare. So then what's the answer? There are two things at play here: 1.) How do you address poverty in general, and to what extent? and 2.) How do you incentivize people remove themselves from generational poverty?

I can fully acknowledge that in the United States, we have a completely ass-backwards way of addressing poverty. There's a better answer out there, and we need conservatives and liberals alike to help figure out what that looks like.

On a related note every generation of my family includes people (including my very brother) who've taken advantage of military service to help improve their life situations. That's great. And it's not just "white working class" who do that. Military demographics mirror the demographics of the nation. So I agree that it's a great thing; it's just not the total solution.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on November 29, 2016, 10:08:10 AM
I am a straight white dude who will probably end up solidly in the upper middle class. That being said, I feel confident in using the word terrifying—something I don't use lightly (I haven't said it at all concerning Trump's campaign)—because the way 7th talks is a reflection of a shift in society that, I feel, will, if it takes hold, undermine the order and stability of civil society. Facts are facts. It's as simple as that. People can discuss facts with bias but the outright rejection of the notion of facts as leftist propaganda is genuinely scary. I fear for a society where people refuse to appreciate the severity of situations like climate change. I fear for a society where communication is impossible because one side rejects everything the other side says as lies and conspiracy—this is certainly a more right-wing phenomenon today.

Ultimately, I genuinely fear for political, ecological, economic, and societal collapse. I don't think Trump is going to bring that about. But a certain section of his supporters—with their complete disregard for the way things actually are—absolutely could.

Why is it all of  a sudden "terrifying" when it's rejected as LEFTIST propaganda?  You don't think that the Bernsters aren't interested in deep, fact-based discussions about economics?  What about that woman on Neal Cavuto that, when confronted by Neal that her proposal would require the top 10% of earners to pay 100% - read that again:  ONE HUNDRED PERCENT; all, everything; the whole kit-and-caboodle - of their earnings and it STILL wouldn't pay for more than about 60% of what she wanted to see, said "so what!".   

Let me tell you:  a racist, blue-collar bigot in Michigan isn't going to bring about "political, ecological, economic, and societal collapse".   George Soros?  Not so much.   Completely undermining the economic system of this country with continued handouts and grants (like Bernie proposed)?  Not so much.   Completely undermining the economic system of the GLOBE with knee-jerk, poorly thought-out, agenda-driven economic solutions to climate change (which I do understand and accept)?  Not so much. 

Point:  this isn't about LEFT and RIGHT, and if you're truly terrified NOW, you should have been just as terrified six months ago, when everyone (including Trump himself) thought Hillary was going to be President.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on November 29, 2016, 10:29:42 AM
What your missing is that privilege is not just a racial thing. There's racial privilege, gender privilege, financial privilege, and so on. What it means to be "of x privilege" is to say that you're not at a disadvantage because you possess x. So, like the people in Appalachia, there are people that can be be extremely disadvantaged financially, but still benefiting from racial privilege. Then there are of course people of color who do not possess any white privilege, but are also not suffering from financial disadvantages that many whites may be. This is called intersectionality, and it's what makes talking about these topics so difficulty. It's not enough to just talk about one type of privilege or another. We have to talk about racism, sexism, gender, and economics all at once.

Appalachia is an interesting topic because there are a lot of large scale things hurting a very particular population. Poverty in this country is not unique to people of color, and I'll be the first to admit that liberals  like myself do a very bad job of talking about poverty in general. However, the other problem we have in this country, is poverty cycles that overwhelmingly affect one specific racial group, and have for generations. That can't be ignored. So, of course, I want to see things done to combat poverty, period. But broad measures are not going to be enough to help the group that has had the most people stuck in poverty for over 100 years. There needs to be more.

What?  So when does it end?  You're now talking not really about "privilege" but "outcomes".  We're also ignoring simple rules of physics like "cause/effect", "correlation", and "coincidence".   If "poverty" affects one specific racial group more than another, is that BECAUSE the race causes the poverty?   Not necessarily.   Is the poverty caused by something else that is caused by the race?   Not necessarily, but it could.   

The problem, Skeever, is that the "[insert] privilege" discussion precludes in-depth understanding of HOW and WHY these facts occur, and most importantly, what we do about it.   

The difference with me - and I'm not suggesting anything about any other poster here - is that I don't care what the answer is. I am not afraid of true equality of opportunity.   I just don't like the crass and self-serving assumptions that are being made, and I don't like the blurring of "outcome" with "opportunity".   Black, white, Jew, Muslim, Kiss fan, you still need to deliver on that opportunity YOURSELF and it shouldn't be handed to you (this is why I'm so against Affirmative Action; it replaces the opportunity with the outcome).   If addressing 'white privilege' through government was the answer, why then is the number of people in poverty INCREASING the more programs we put in place?  This goes back to other discussions too; the dialogue in this country today is such that to even SUGGEST that the economic position of a certain class is not directly tied to suppression of that class - and might actually be related to other things, especially if those things are IN THE CONTROL of that class - open the suggestor up to accusations of racism.   

Quote
The bold part of this post is all I care to address. See the above, my response to Prog Snob, as a lot of it answers these points. Look, I'll be the first to admit that we need to do a better job of addressing poverty in general and that democrats have done an increasingly bad job with this. I know how snobby it sounds when well-off people from great schools minimize the problems that working class people have. So yeah, you got it.

But there's another problem, that goes beyond poverty, and it's an onslaught of social and economic disadvantages that overwhelmingly and disproportionately affect certain groups, and there is more data than you could ever need to back that claim up. So, yes, we need to do more to address root causes of poverty in general. Beyond that, we need to address how an unbreakable cycle of poverty has affected a specific group.

But with that, you're positing a problem, then showcasing that problem.  What group do you mean? African Americans?   So we have to put the poverty discussion for the 46 million people (regardless of color) on hold, in order to address the poverty discussion for the 15 million people (roughly 25% of the 12% of the population that is African American, just using them as an example), even though the 46 million includes them, and for at least SOME (if not the majority) of that 15 million, the answer is the same?   What does that say about the left?   Why does that 12% of the population get special treatment?   
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on November 29, 2016, 10:48:02 AM
Because then everything that Bruce, Katy Perry, etc. says about the "blue collar man" is bullshit.   That means that gays, blacks and women ARE different, even though we've spend 50 years claiming that "WE'RE ALL THE SAME ON THE INSIDE!"   

No. It means they are treated differently despite that they are "the same on the inside".


And @7th, we can discuss the extent to which privilege affects all these issues, but privilege is not make believe. It's 100% reality despite the fact that you hear about it in the "liberal media". Have you ever gotten pulled over by a cop and then asked to have your car searched because you were white? How many times have you been "randomly" selected for extra security checks in the airport because you were white? We can argue about the reasons this exists, and the morality/implications, etc., but it exists. People are systematically treated differently based on what they look like or how they sound. It's that simple. You can't deny it.

I absolutely CAN deny it, or at least question the proof and methodology, as you stretch the raw data to conclusions.   You do understand, don't you, that a poverty rate of 12% for whites and 25% for blacks (close to real numbers, by the way) does NOT in and of itself mean that the ONLY difference is RACE, and is not "proof" of white privilege.   Anyone with a college stats course can tell you that, yet that's the "proof" most often offered.   

Connecticut did a study of traffic stops about a year or so ago, using a stretch of road here in the middle of the State, and found that, as compared to the general population demographics of Connecticut (roughly 68% white and 12% black, as compared to the US, which is 65% white and 13% black) blacks were stopped at about twice the rate of whites.    The local leader of the NAACP came out THAT DAY calling for indictments of law enforcement leaders, and sweeping changes, blah, blah, blah.   Then, quietly, about a week later, there was a follow-up noting that further review of the data showed that a) in over half the stops, the officer didn't know the race of the driver when the stop was initiated, and b) when adjusted for that locality (where the demographic percentages didn't hold), and assessing the estimated make-up of the traffic patters (even accounting for public transportation and what not), that in fact, the difference was that blacks were stopped at a rate only about 1% higher than whites, and well within the study's margin of error.    I did not see any retraction or apology from the local leader of the NAACP.   

I strongly suggest that race is likely a variable in the equation, that racism exists, but that much of the "white privilege" argument is evidence of nothing more than "I have a conclusion, and I have to find data to support it" as opposed to a rigorous application of the scientific method. 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 29, 2016, 10:57:30 AM
Because then everything that Bruce, Katy Perry, etc. says about the "blue collar man" is bullshit.   That means that gays, blacks and women ARE different, even though we've spend 50 years claiming that "WE'RE ALL THE SAME ON THE INSIDE!"   

No. It means they are treated differently despite that they are "the same on the inside".


And @7th, we can discuss the extent to which privilege affects all these issues, but privilege is not make believe. It's 100% reality despite the fact that you hear about it in the "liberal media". Have you ever gotten pulled over by a cop and then asked to have your car searched because you were white? How many times have you been "randomly" selected for extra security checks in the airport because you were white? We can argue about the reasons this exists, and the morality/implications, etc., but it exists. People are systematically treated differently based on what they look like or how they sound. It's that simple. You can't deny it.

It's funny you should use those examples because I actually have had my car searched, not because I was white, but because I had long hair.  Also, I have had the TSA make me miss flights on more than one occasion because they singled me out and decided to search me head to toe, one time they even disassembled my computer.  It had trace amounts of gun powder residue on it because I had done work in a shooting range and they held me for hours to see if I was on no-fly lists.  So, yes, I get the same hassles other people do.  I think the point is my shiny white skin didn't give me some free pass.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: PowerSlave on November 29, 2016, 11:04:52 AM
.   Then, quietly, about a week later, there was a follow-up noting that further review of the data showed that a) in over half the stops, the officer didn't know the race of the driver when the stop was initiated,

I don't understand this, unless these stops were made at night when their vision would be obscured. Otherwise, it seems a bit flimsy.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on November 29, 2016, 11:04:58 AM
Stadler - I don't think we disagree, per say. I don't think I'm glossing over anything to make my point, which is not about safety nets, but rather about how I do not see being white working class as equivalent to being part of group that has experienced longstanding discrimination and generational poverty. I look at it in terms of percentages. Even given the economic situation of my parents, I was born with a certain percentage chance that I'd have parents who were together, a community that was largely safe, a good public school system (that was safe), parents who would be able to afford my needs, parents who would be able to pay for me to go to college, parents who would be able to buy me things I needed to get a start.  In reality, only some of these things ever came true for me, and many didn't. But as a general rule, for a person of color born on the same day as me in a similar economic situation, those percentages were all likely much lower. Why? It's not due to a genetic difference. There's a whole complicated slew of socioeconomic issues that get glossed over by Facebook memes.

Understanding that you and I probably come from backgrounds that are more similar than not (including the idea that "some" things came true, and "some" didn't), not all those things are a result of discrimination AGAINST race.  I recognize I'm getting into tricky territory here, but it's not a "white" issue that my parents did or did not stay together.  It's not a "white" issue that I have a safe or dangerous community.   

Quote
As far as safety nets go, the discussion for me isn't about whether or not we need safety nets. The discussion is more along the lines of "what should that safety net look like?" I think your hitting on a greater truth - the safety net ought not to give more than one can go out and earn, because then it does become "the solution". Are we at that point now? Perhaps in some ways. But maybe there are facets of poverty we aren't tackling at all - let's say, healthcare. So then what's the answer? There are two things at play here: 1.) How do you address poverty in general, and to what extent? and 2.) How do you incentivize people remove themselves from generational poverty?

I can fully acknowledge that in the United States, we have a completely ass-backwards way of addressing poverty. There's a better answer out there, and we need conservatives and liberals alike to help figure out what that looks like.

On a related note every generation of my family includes people (including my very brother) who've taken advantage of military service to help improve their life situations. That's great. And it's not just "white working class" who do that. Military demographics mirror the demographics of the nation. So I agree that it's a great thing; it's just not the total solution.

The military isn't the total solution, but it is an example of the type of solution that might work.   The theoretical trick for me is this:  the government benefit shouldn't ever be the only difference between "success" and "failure", because then you have an "outcome" based system.  THAT'S where the problem occurs, not because of race, not because people are "lazy", not because people aren't "proud", but because it's a simple matter of risk reward.   I find it head-scratching when we bend over backwards saying "SEE!  I TOLD you! It wasn't his fault!" when a poor black person gets in trouble for dealing weed because he was making $400 in cash on the daily.  Yeah, there's the notion of "planning for your future", but it's not just African Americans who are more than willing to take "90% certainty of $400 in cash today in exchange for 20% of jail at some point in the future, or a 20% shot at getting into the system, making $1200 per week, in a check, before taxes, etc.".   Anyone you know that goes to a casino or plays the lottery is playing THAT game. 

And let's not ignore that it's not any ONE variable, including race.   To end poverty, we have to get healthcare settled.  We have to legalize weed (and I would go further and legalize most banned substances, including heroin and coke).  We have to revamp education, to make sure that it's not a "two track program" ("college" or "figure it out on your own").   Why we don't start more rigorous career training - no, I'm not talking about "shop class" - in high school is beyond me.  Why we're not teaching kids in high school to balance check books and understand what "APR" means is beyond me.   
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on November 29, 2016, 11:13:11 AM
.   Then, quietly, about a week later, there was a follow-up noting that further review of the data showed that a) in over half the stops, the officer didn't know the race of the driver when the stop was initiated,

I don't understand this, unless these stops were made at night when their vision would be obscured. Otherwise, it seems a bit flimsy.

Not at all.  I'm in a cruiser, I'm parked in a turn-around - you know the kind:  "Official Vehicles Only" - and I see the flash of a car going by at 65, 70 miles an hour, and my radar gun goes off - beeps - and I engage in pursuit of the "blue sedan" that just flew by me.   My brother is a traffic cop in a reasonably affluent community in Florida, and I actually asked him about this about a year ago (I happened to be dick deep in a conversation about this very issue with our own el Barto) and it was one of the things he was frustrated with in this whole dialogue.   He recognizes the reality of things (he and el Barto got me to understand that body cams are a good thing; he also admitted that he knows officers that might have taken less care about the frame of the police car door and the perps head depending on whether they knew the suspect or not) but was clear:  it's one thing to be standing face to face, 50 feet apart, and know your adversary, but it's not nearly that cut and dry in most cases.   
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Skeever on November 29, 2016, 11:15:10 AM
The problem, Skeever, is that the "[insert] privilege" discussion precludes in-depth understanding of HOW and WHY these facts occur, and most importantly, what we do about it.   
I don't agree with this at all. An intelligent conversation about privilege should include all of those things. That's what I'm trying to facilitate here, hopefully made more apparent in the post you haven't gotten to yet.

The difference with me - and I'm not suggesting anything about any other poster here - is that I don't care what the answer is. I am not afraid of true equality of opportunity.   I just don't like the crass and self-serving assumptions that are being made, and I don't like the blurring of "outcome" with "opportunity".
Who is making self-serving assumptions? I also fail to see how I am blurring outcomes with opportunity. Could you elaborate?

Quote
Black, white, Jew, Muslim, Kiss fan, you still need to deliver on that opportunity YOURSELF and it shouldn't be handed to you (this is why I'm so against Affirmative Action; it replaces the opportunity with the outcome).   If addressing 'white privilege' through government was the answer, why then is the number of people in poverty INCREASING the more programs we put in place?
Fair enough, but that isn't what I'd recommend. Does that mean I think we should cease any racially targeted measures myself? No. I think those are part of the picture. But I think you'll see in my next post what I'm getting at.

Quote
This goes back to other discussions too; the dialogue in this country today is such that to even SUGGEST that the economic position of a certain class is not directly tied to suppression of that class - and might actually be related to other things, especially if those things are IN THE CONTROL of that class - open the suggestor up to accusations of racism.
Anecdotal, but once again (as elsewhere in the sub) I feel you are tasking me with answering for everyone you've ever had a bad conversation with. I'm not trying to make a point about this one way or the other. I feel that "things in control" of that class are pointed out with great frequency - from without and within. When these things are offered constructively, they go over well. When they're offered from a place of callousness, they're not. That's my general rule, or how I see it. You can't expect me to defend some "other" side of this greater dialogue as your perceive it... and it's not helpful to the talk we're having here. Could people in generational poverty lift themselves out? Probably. Do they know it? I don't know. What'll help? That's the discussion we should be having.

Quote
But with that, you're positing a problem, then showcasing that problem.  What group do you mean? African Americans?   So we have to put the poverty discussion for the 46 million people (regardless of color) on hold, in order to address the poverty discussion for the 15 million people (roughly 25% of the 12% of the population that is African American, just using them as an example), even though the 46 million includes them, and for at least SOME (if not the majority) of that 15 million, the answer is the same?   What does that say about the left?   Why does that 12% of the population get special treatment?

Not what I'm getting at all. Clarified in the next post that I think you maybe haven't gotten to yet.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 29, 2016, 11:18:09 AM
Here is my real beef with the white privilege concept: As long as we are blaming perceived privilege for the problems in minority communities, we do not address and fix those problems as a society.  Plus, the concept paints with an absolute brush: if you are white life in the USA has been easier and if you are not it has been harder.  The premise is untrue, stupidly easy to discredit, and incredibly racist.  Why subscribe to ideas that are untrue and racist by nature?

Seriously, the concept is one of the ugliest aspects of political correctness.  We will never be equal if we are imposing default inequalities based on genetics alone.     
     
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: jsbru on November 29, 2016, 11:24:53 AM
I live in Appalachia after spending much of my life in San Francisco.  Once I got over the culture shock and harsh realities like liver mush, I realized these people are about the most misunderstood people in the USA.  I heard more racist shit in California than I have ever heard here.  The culture here is actually very laid back, low stress, everyone is welcome sort of living.  It pisses me off that some folks in the urban areas consider these people inferior.  I'll tell ya, if shit ever hits the fan these people are the ones who know how to live off the grid and take care of business without a nanny state taking care of them.  Yes, many of them are poor.  Actually, I have been all over the world and the Native American reservations in the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Montana combine with the Appalachian poor are living WAY harder than those in city welfare classes.  Why no support from the left for these people?  How exactly is white privilege helping a family of 8 living in a singewide somewhere in West Virginia?  What good for the Native Americans does the Billions in drug and skin money that keeps many inner city folks in Mercedes and Crystal do??  Seriously, the holier than thou leftists who think they are champions for the downtrodden and weak don't even know who the sufferers are in our world.  Sorry if I am a bit too hyperbolic but it's fucking true.  If I hear another rich-ass college frat boy talk about white privilege I may simply vapor lock.   

I sort of agree that some of the loudest voices on the left lately exhibit boutique outrage that mainly serves what they think is their political and cultural agenda.  I don't like the trashing of rural voters or poor whites.

I'd rather they craft a progressive message based solely on economics--which is a common thread that unites more than 50% of this country.  We had this option this year, but the DNC decided it was too "risky."

In general, though, Democrats' actual agenda is far closer to the latter.  Obamacare is a major boost for healthcare for those in poverty--no matter what your race, even though a lot of Republican governors blocked the Medicaid expansion portion of the law in their own states just to smite Obama and deny him a political victory at the expense of the lives of their own citizens.  Obama's new overtime rule (that is currently being blocked by conservative judges) is a huge boost for low-end salaried employees (lower-middle class).

Almost every major policy Obama has advanced has gone to help poor and working-class people, Republicans have opposed him every step of the way, and yet we have a large bloc of working-class people convinced that he's some tyrannical dictator just waiting to take their rights away.

I do blame this mainly on a steady stream of reality-free propaganda being targeted at certain groups of working-class voters through AM Radio, fake news on Facebook, and various websites (including Steve Bannon's Breitbart).  We're now getting to the point where some isolated red areas are just culturally divorced from fact and what is really going on with this world that it's becoming a danger to our democracy and a danger to civil society.  They think our own democratically-elected government is the enemy, and they're told to buy a lot of guns.  I think we're less than 10 years away from electing a true Nazi as President (Trump's semi-fascist campaign has plowed the road), or some sort of civil war or something.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: PowerSlave on November 29, 2016, 11:27:27 AM
.   Then, quietly, about a week later, there was a follow-up noting that further review of the data showed that a) in over half the stops, the officer didn't know the race of the driver when the stop was initiated,

I don't understand this, unless these stops were made at night when their vision would be obscured. Otherwise, it seems a bit flimsy.

Not at all.  I'm in a cruiser, I'm parked in a turn-around - you know the kind:  "Official Vehicles Only" - and I see the flash of a car going by at 65, 70 miles an hour, and my radar gun goes off - beeps - and I engage in pursuit of the "blue sedan" that just flew by me.   My brother is a traffic cop in a reasonably affluent community in Florida, and I actually asked him about this about a year ago (I happened to be dick deep in a conversation about this very issue with our own el Barto) and it was one of the things he was frustrated with in this whole dialogue.   He recognizes the reality of things (he and el Barto got me to understand that body cams are a good thing; he also admitted that he knows officers that might have taken less care about the frame of the police car door and the perps head depending on whether they knew the suspect or not) but was clear:  it's one thing to be standing face to face, 50 feet apart, and know your adversary, but it's not nearly that cut and dry in most cases.

I'll give you those circumstances. However, the few times that I've been pulled over in the past (and other times when I wasn't pulled over), I have been followed for a significant distance prior to them taking whichever action. I can only assume that they were running my plates, and deciding what to do after the information comes back to them. I'm fairly tall(my head not being obscured by the seat), so I'm sure that along with them being able to see my pasty white skin, they'll also know my basic information from the plate info well before they exit their cruiser to approach me to begin the stop.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Skeever on November 29, 2016, 11:28:11 AM
Here is my real beef with the white privilege concept: As long as we are blaming perceived privilege for the problems in minority communities, we do not address and fix those problems as a society.
That's NOT what it means. We blame several social and economic factors (some from without, others from within) for problems in minority communities. "White privilege" just means you were lucky enough to NOT be born into one of those communities.

It's just like saying that you're privileged to be born in America. It DOESN'T mean that America caused all the ills that other countries are experiencing. It just means there are certain things you don't have to worry about, because you are American. It doesn't mean that your life is great, or even particularly good. It just acknowledges that being American affords you certain benefits.

And let's not ignore that it's not any ONE variable, including race.   To end poverty, we have to get healthcare settled.  We have to legalize weed (and I would go further and legalize most banned substances, including heroin and coke).  We have to revamp education, to make sure that it's not a "two track program" ("college" or "figure it out on your own").   Why we don't start more rigorous career training - no, I'm not talking about "shop class" - in high school is beyond me.  Why we're not teaching kids in high school to balance check books and understand what "APR" means is beyond me.

Pretty much agree with all this, aside from some of the stuff about banned substances. Like I said earlier, I don't think we're too far apart. It's a complicated problem, and perhaps democrats have done a bad job in giving the impression that they only care about ONE variable. If you're gonna talk about poverty, healthcare, education, and other things we need, you'd best be damned sure you're talking about everyone. That's just the society we live in. Do I think that it's unfair to have initiatives that target specific communities or problems, like AA is (supposed) to do? No, not at all. But again, I see that as only one (imperfect) variable of what we need. Maybe we need MORE that's designed to target specific communities. Maybe we need MORE that's proposed from the ground up, rather than the top down. Maybe it NEEDS to be local. We are not going to get that from Washington, no matter who is President. Regardless, I'd like to move beyond the phoney discussion our politicians promote (should we or shouldn't we have it!) into a more practical one - WHAT is the problem we are experiencing, WHO is going to take care of it, and HOW?
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: jsbru on November 29, 2016, 11:35:56 AM
No question I've been the benefit of white privilege with law enforcement on multiple occasions.  Getting busted but no tickets written, etc.  I don't even know about the times when I was not pulled over at all.

But still, it's one thing to talk about white privilege.  It's another thing to talk about it as if it trumps all other privileges out there, like economic or cultural privilege.  And it's another to talk about it in a way that accuses all whites of being racist.

It doesn't surprise me that a white family living in Appalachia on food stamps and $20,000 per year turns on their TV, looks at minority Ivy League college students mentally breaking down over Halloween costumes and shouting "white privilege," and as a result feels completely alienated by our political culture--or even worse, reacts in anger and joins a White Supremacist group.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on November 29, 2016, 11:45:23 AM
The problem, Skeever, is that the "[insert] privilege" discussion precludes in-depth understanding of HOW and WHY these facts occur, and most importantly, what we do about it.   
I don't agree with this at all. An intelligent conversation about privilege should include all of those things. That's what I'm trying to facilitate here, hopefully made more apparent in the post you haven't gotten to yet.

Well, fair is fair; you are elevating the discussion to an admirable degree.  Not everyone is following your lead here.

Quote
Who is making self-serving assumptions? I also fail to see how I am blurring outcomes with opportunity. Could you elaborate?

Again, not necessarily you.  But the idea of "[insert class] privilege in and of itself is self-serving. It assumes that despite the data to the contrary, we're ALL in a race war.   I say this to be funny, but it's almost taking on the level of "Godwin's Law".  Can we please call it "Stadler's Law"?  Once one invokes the premise of "white privilege" - that I am incapable of experiencing empathy, that I am incapable of showing any real compassion for those that aren't EXACTLY LIKE ME - one kind of precludes any data driven discussion.

As for "outcomes", because this is not a 'data driven discussion', it's basically free of any burden of showing that any class is dependent on "opportunity", but just measures on "outcomes".   Poverty or no poverty.  There's an element to Appalachia that is not at all dependent on race, or even religion or intelligence, but GEOGRAPHY.   Geography is not a "privilege" issue.  I've long railed against the idea that we are WELL past the days that we can do the same job, in the same town, for the same company, making the same product, for a career at ever increasing wages.   Whether its coal or cars, if your bread and butter isn't buying the bacon anymore, at what point do you eliminate all the variables that you DO control before you're entitled to take the benefits of "white privilege"?   We can argue what the percentage is, but I would emphatically say it's far more than "0%", and a lot of this "white privilege" not only assumes, but REQUIRES that it be "0%". 

Quote
Anecdotal, but once again (as elsewhere in the sub) I feel you are tasking me with answering for everyone you've ever had a bad conversation with. I'm not trying to make a point about this one way or the other. I feel that "things in control" of that class are pointed out with great frequency - from without and within. When these things are offered constructively, they go over well. When they're offered from a place of callousness, they're not. That's my general rule, or how I see it. You can't expect me to defend some "other" side of this greater dialogue as your perceive it... and it's not helpful to the talk we're having here. Could people in generational poverty lift themselves out? Probably. Do they know it? I don't know. What'll help? That's the discussion we should be having.

I understand what you're saying, Skeever, and I apologize for that impression. It's partially a true accusation, but not completely, because I believe that the "white privilege" argument encompasses all those things.  That you didn't bring them up is a fair point, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.   If you're agreeing we should have that conversation, then I'm with you 100%.  I think the "white privilege" discussion overwhelms that though.   There was a quiet line of thought - and no, not just from racists and bigots - that held that Obama's election was a breakthrough for a many reasons, but the one that was most important was that it removed the excuse.  There was no excuse, there was no safety net by crying "racism!" when the most powerful man in the world was an African American.  And yet, that didn't happen, and not only that, it didn't even remain a variable, minor or otherwise.  It just changed the nature of the excuse.  "Overt" racism became more taboo (a good thing) but the argument of "systemic racism" increased.   There likely is systemic racism, at least in certain sectors of the system, but we're losing the thought that it is cyclical.  Every increase in opportunity HAS to be accompanied by a similar increase in earned outcome (meaning, not guaranteed by the safety net).  Where is that? 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 29, 2016, 11:46:34 AM
I think we're less than 10 years away from electing a true Nazi as President (Trump's semi-fascist campaign has plowed the road), or some sort of civil war or something.

Other than a few fringe nutjobs, the right and conservatives in general are not fascist, not racist, and they would never put up with a totalitarian dictatorship.  That very possibility is why the 2nd amendment is so important to uphold.  Actually, the left are WAY more likely to hand the keys to the kingdom over to a new world Stalin or Hitler in my opinion.  Remember, their first steps to power were parallel with modern progressivism: disarm the population, install politically correct propaganda networks, and redistribute the wealth.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on November 29, 2016, 11:48:31 AM
I'd rather they craft a progressive message based solely on economics--which is a common thread that unites more than 50% of this country.  We had this option this year, but the DNC decided it was too "risky."

Honest question:  why only "50%" of the country?   Economics is the one issue that unites ALL of us.  It's the one universal thread, even if the impact is very different along the spectrum.

(And don't confuse issues; we had this option, but the specific DNC message wasn't "too risky", it was "too untenable".  They knew full well that on the national stage it would have been torn apart for what it was:  a disingenuous and biased sop to the poorest of the poor.)


Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: hefdaddy42 on November 29, 2016, 11:52:09 AM
Actually, the left are WAY more likely to hand the keys to the kingdom over to a new world Stalin or Hitler in my opinion.
You can think that if you want, but the right actually DID do this, or at least the closest thing I've ever seen to that.

Remember, their first steps to power were parallel with modern progressivism: disarm the population, install politically correct propaganda networks, and redistribute the wealth.
I see that threat bandied about quite a bit from people on the right about people on the left.  I have yet to actually see anyone on the left ever propose a plan to disarm the population. 

I'm still waiting on Obama to institute the roundup that was threatened by many on the right when he was elected, and that caused ammo shortages all over the country by people trying to buy up the supply since they would soon be banned.  Well, he still has a month and a half, I guess he could still do it.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: jsbru on November 29, 2016, 11:52:14 AM
I didn't say only 50%, I said more than 50%.

It's not 100%, because economics are not all a "make the pie larger" kind of game.  The pie is getting larger, but due to class warfare, the rich are seizing almost all those extra pieces of pie.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on November 29, 2016, 11:57:21 AM
In general, though, Democrats' actual agenda is far closer to the latter.  Obamacare is a major boost for healthcare for those in poverty--no matter what your race, even though a lot of Republican governors blocked the Medicaid expansion portion of the law in their own states just to smite Obama and deny him a political victory at the expense of the lives of their own citizens.  Obama's new overtime rule (that is currently being blocked by conservative judges) is a huge boost for low-end salaried employees (lower-middle class).

Uh, as usual, half the story.  It wasn't entirely to "smite" Obama, even though it had that effect.   

Quote
Almost every major policy Obama has advanced has gone to help poor and working-class people, Republicans have opposed him every step of the way, and yet we have a large bloc of working-class people convinced that he's some tyrannical dictator just waiting to take their rights away.

So why is poverty the highest it's ever been?  Why is the number of people receiving benefits the highest it's ever been?  Since when is "helping" equivalent to "just giving people shit"?    You erroneously - and lamely, and partisanly - attribute this to the most vile of Republican motives, but the reality is far from that.  It's as much, if not more, because the so-called "advancements" are stop-gaps that address, temporarily, the symptoms, but ignore the underlying problem, and in come cases (like the deficit for one, like some aspects of the ACA for another) exacerbate the underlying problem. 

Quote
I do blame this mainly on a steady stream of reality-free propaganda being targeted at certain groups of working-class voters through AM Radio, fake news on Facebook, and various websites (including Steve Bannon's Breitbart).  We're now getting to the point where some isolated red areas are just culturally divorced from fact and what is really going on with this world that it's becoming a danger to our democracy and a danger to civil society.  They think our own democratically-elected government is the enemy, and they're told to buy a lot of guns.  I think we're less than 10 years away from electing a true Nazi as President (Trump's semi-fascist campaign has plowed the road), or some sort of civil war or something.

Okay.  Sure.  As if the "Blue Ocean" of California is SOOOOOO in touch with the rest of the country.  Right.   Ironically, the Left likes to target the "rich" as evil, and focused almost their entire energy on the "top 1%", but it was a fake enemy, and largely, it was, if not the 1%, then the 10%, that was largely driving this message.

I am really actually shocked at the degree to which we'll argue "THEY NEED TO BE HEARD!" when it's a message we agree with, but as soon as that message starts to diverge from our precious, deeply-held beliefs, it's "TERRIFYING!" and "NAZI!".   
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: jsbru on November 29, 2016, 11:59:56 AM
Other than a few fringe nutjobs, the right and conservatives in general are not fascist, not racist, and they would never put up with a totalitarian dictatorship.  That very possibility is why the 2nd amendment is so important to uphold.  Actually, the left are WAY more likely to hand the keys to the kingdom over to a new world Stalin or Hitler in my opinion.  Remember, their first steps to power were parallel with modern progressivism: disarm the population, install politically correct propaganda networks, and redistribute the wealth.

Yeah, gun sales under Obama were at like record levels.  All Democrats have proposed lately are banning some assault weapons that have no reasonable basis in self-defense or hunting, and implement stuff like tougher background checks--which most gun owners even support.

As far as politically correct propaganda, Trump's the first nominee in recent history to use openly racist campaign rhetoric, and CNN gave him months of free air time.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: jsbru on November 29, 2016, 12:07:05 PM
So why is poverty the highest it's ever been?  Why is the number of people receiving benefits the highest it's ever been?

Unemployment claims are at historic lows right now.

As for why employment hasn't cured poverty for a lot of our citizens, you should ask the party that attacks unions and refuses to allow a raise in the minimum wage, refuses to raise the minimum salary for overtime exemption, and refuses the expansion of Medicaid.

As for wealth consolidation at the top--that's the natural order of any largely low-tax market economy.  And we have a global market economy now that--for the major players at least that have the legal resources to dodge taxes--is relatively low tax.  It's been trending this way for 40 years now, and Obama can't do enough to stop it.

I've read plenty of libertarian political and economic philosophy, so I have a grasp of both sides.  I highly suggest you take some time to read Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century.  I'm almost certain you'd find it fascinating.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on November 29, 2016, 12:09:45 PM
It's just like saying that you're privileged to be born in America. It DOESN'T mean that America caused all the ills that other countries are experiencing. It just means there are certain things you don't have to worry about, because you are American. It doesn't mean that your life is great, or even particularly good. It just acknowledges that being American affords you certain benefits.

Just philosophically, how did we get there?  It's only been 200 some-odd years since we were begging France for a loan, and about 225 since we told the richest, most powerful empire on the planet to fuck off rightly.   

I know you well enough - and respect you well enough - that I don't think YOU PERSONALLY are being disingenuous, but the argument is, because admitting that there might be SOME advantage doesn't stop there.   Once you remove the global aspect of it, and introduce national race (meaning, the race profile of our nation), the admission of the advantage implies that something must be done about it, and more importantly, that the so-called "advantaged" have to willingly, proactively, and potentially damagingly, relinquish that advantage. 


Quote
It's a complicated problem, and perhaps democrats have done a bad job in giving the impression that they only care about ONE variable.

It's not a problem that is exclusive of the Left.  ALL politics is reduced to one variable.  Trump ran an entire campaign on not just one variable, but one ASPECT of that variable ("I'm building a wall.").   

Quote
Maybe it NEEDS to be local. We are not going to get that from Washington, no matter who is President. Regardless, I'd like to move beyond the phoney discussion our politicians promote (should we or shouldn't we have it!) into a more practical one - WHAT is the problem we are experiencing, WHO is going to take care of it, and HOW?

Well, again philosophically, isn't that REALLY the crux of the matter?  Isn't that REALLY the heart of the problem?  Do we expect a national government - tasked with protecting 325,000,000 people spread across 3,790,000 square miles - to speak eloquently and equally for EVERY person, black or white, from Point Barrow, Alaska to Ballast Key, Florida?  It's not rational.  THAT is the real message of this election, even if it is poorly articulated, and perhaps not really intended.   

The rich liberal in California does not speak for the poor conservative in Michigan, or western Pennsylvania.  (Interestingly, the argument against my "terrifying" comment is exactly the opposite of the argument FOR the popular vote.  How nice of me to bring this back on topic. :) ). 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on November 29, 2016, 12:17:01 PM
Actually, the left are WAY more likely to hand the keys to the kingdom over to a new world Stalin or Hitler in my opinion.
You can think that if you want, but the right actually DID do this, or at least the closest thing I've ever seen to that.

When?  Where?  And if you're talking about Trump, why did so many people that voted for OBAMA in '08 and '12 vote for Trump?   I don't agree with the "terrifying" argument, though I do understand it, and it's based on this faulty logic.  Plenty of Democrats didn't see it that way, and either decided to vote for Trump, or that if they couldn't vote for Hillary and weren't going to vote at all.



Quote
I see that threat bandied about quite a bit from people on the right about people on the left.  I have yet to actually see anyone on the left ever propose a plan to disarm the population. 

I'm still waiting on Obama to institute the roundup that was threatened by many on the right when he was elected, and that caused ammo shortages all over the country by people trying to buy up the supply since they would soon be banned.  Well, he still has a month and a half, I guess he could still do it.

I can't speak for the roundup (I didn't even know it was even on the table), but just go to Chris Murphy's website.  He's the junior Senator from Connecticut who has wasted not one single moment to prostitute and whore out those poor families from Sandy Hook in his ridiculous and unfounded zeal to do exactly what you're saying "no one on the Left has ever done".  What about Washington DC?  What about New York City?  See this:  http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-and-shotguns/  that names both Bloomberg (calling him a "zealot" on the issue) and Cuomo.   That's not disarming?
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on November 29, 2016, 12:18:32 PM
I didn't say only 50%, I said more than 50%.

It's not 100%, because economics are not all a "make the pie larger" kind of game.  The pie is getting larger, but due to class warfare, the rich are seizing almost all those extra pieces of pie.

Well, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you let me down.  You're not interested then in issues that we can build consensus on, but rather that we can take sides on. 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on November 29, 2016, 12:31:09 PM
I'm still waiting on Obama to institute the roundup that was threatened by many on the right when he was elected, and that caused ammo shortages all over the country by people trying to buy up the supply since they would soon be banned.  Well, he still has a month and a half, I guess he could still do it.

And the gun companies in bed with the right, probably saw astronomical profits from that line of crap getting pushed on the public.  Brilliantly played, really.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on November 29, 2016, 12:34:25 PM
So why is poverty the highest it's ever been?  Why is the number of people receiving benefits the highest it's ever been?

Unemployment claims are at historic lows right now.

As for why employment hasn't cured poverty for a lot of our citizens, you should ask the party that attacks unions and refuses to allow a raise in the minimum wage, refuses to raise the minimum salary for overtime exemption, and refuses the expansion of Medicaid.

As for wealth consolidation at the top--that's the natural order of any largely low-tax market economy.  And we have a global market economy now that--for the major players at least that have the legal resources to dodge taxes--is relatively low tax.  It's been trending this way for 40 years now, and Obama can't do enough to stop it.

I've read plenty of libertarian political and economic philosophy, so I have a grasp of both sides.  I highly suggest you take some time to read Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century.  I'm almost certain you'd find it fascinating.

I feel like "Factcheck.org" when you post. Swear to god.   

"Unemployment levels" are not a "record lows" right now.  Both the reported and "real" numbers are barely back to where they were before Obama trashed the economy, and still above the levels that were typical of both the Bush and Clinton administrations (the latter where the TRUE "record lows" occurred). 

Unions are great for certain applications - worker safety, wages - WHEN NO REGULATION EXISTS TO PROTECT THEM.   That's not the case in the United States circa 2016.   I work for a major U.S. manufacturer, and across the board, our NON-UNION plants have higher wages, more productivity and are safer.  The choice you paint is a false choice, and the despised Republicans know this:  it's not between "current low rates and a shit ton of poverty and higher union wages and no poverty".   It's "current low rates and a shit ton of poverty and even MORE jobs and corporations moving overseas".   

You may be aware of this stuff but you make some key errors.   You have to look at it consistently across the board; you can't look at it from a state or national level when it comes to COGS, and globally when it comes to market, or vice versa.   What most - including the Right - don't realize is that we're not seeing a "decrease in American ingenuity" or "a decrease in American quality" or any of those things.  It's not Obama's fault (except to the extent that he doesn't know what the problem is - he doesn't - and puts his politics and legacy ahead of the well-being of the country - he does).    trump thinks it's bad for Americans to be buying Chinese products. How the fuck do you think it feels like to be Russia? Or Brasil?  Or any of those other countries that want to be prosperous and want to play on the global stage but are forced to buy American shit?    We are, like it or not, a global marketplace.    If we're going to use Bernie'e "we're the only first-world nation without healthcare!" argument, then we need to be apples-to-apples on all of it.  We need to look at the global MARKETPLACE, the global WAGE LEVEL, the global TAXATION LEVEL, the global SECURITY LEVEL (and cost), and none of those are consistent either.     

You have a bunch of facts that look real neat on their own, but don't add up.  As I will take your advice to reacquaint myself with that book, and you might take the advice of seeing the bigger picture. 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: bosk1 on November 29, 2016, 12:39:23 PM
So why is poverty the highest it's ever been?  Why is the number of people receiving benefits the highest it's ever been?

Unemployment claims are at historic lows right now.

...

...   

"Unemployment levels" are not a "record lows" right now.  Both the reported and "real" numbers are barely back to where they were before Obama trashed the economy, and still above the levels that were typical of both the Bush and Clinton administrations (the latter where the TRUE "record lows" occurred). 

...

Not only that, but (speaking as a labor and employment lawyer here) "unemployment levels" is a stupid, meaningless statistic.  I say that because there is not a direct correlation to what is really important, which is employment rates.  Actually employment rates are low--abysmally so.  And since unemployment rate statistics are only based on the number of unemployment benefits claims filed, they don't tell you the whole story when people are out of work so long they cannot file for unemployment, or are so discouraged by the system that they do not file for unemployment.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 29, 2016, 12:54:26 PM
So why is poverty the highest it's ever been?  Why is the number of people receiving benefits the highest it's ever been?

Unemployment claims are at historic lows right now.

...

...   

"Unemployment levels" are not a "record lows" right now.  Both the reported and "real" numbers are barely back to where they were before Obama trashed the economy, and still above the levels that were typical of both the Bush and Clinton administrations (the latter where the TRUE "record lows" occurred). 

...

Not only that, but (speaking as a labor and employment lawyer here) "unemployment levels" is a stupid, meaningless statistic.  I say that because there is not a direct correlation to what is really important, which is employment rates.  Actually employment rates are low--abysmally so.  And since unemployment rate statistics are only based on the number of unemployment benefits claims filed, they don't tell you the whole story when people are out of work so long they cannot file for unemployment, or are so discouraged by the system that they do not file for unemployment.

This +1 on employment rates vs unemployment claims.  It makes me wince when politicians cite unemployment claims statistics as performance indicators on employment.  So many people are out of work, beyond eligibility for benefits, and are written off as "unemployable" or not seeking work.  When I here politicians do this, I immediately file them in the con artist file - Obama is a top offender of telling this lie to the nation.   
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: hefdaddy42 on November 29, 2016, 12:57:59 PM
Actually, the left are WAY more likely to hand the keys to the kingdom over to a new world Stalin or Hitler in my opinion.
You can think that if you want, but the right actually DID do this, or at least the closest thing I've ever seen to that.

When?  Where?
Come on.  You know that half of the things Trump says are Fascist or Fascist-leaning.

And if you're talking about Trump, why did so many people that voted for OBAMA in '08 and '12 vote for Trump?
Because they underestimated the capacity for harm in a Trump presidency. 


Quote
I see that threat bandied about quite a bit from people on the right about people on the left.  I have yet to actually see anyone on the left ever propose a plan to disarm the population. 

I'm still waiting on Obama to institute the roundup that was threatened by many on the right when he was elected, and that caused ammo shortages all over the country by people trying to buy up the supply since they would soon be banned.  Well, he still has a month and a half, I guess he could still do it.

I can't speak for the roundup (I didn't even know it was even on the table), but just go to Chris Murphy's website.  He's the junior Senator from Connecticut who has wasted not one single moment to prostitute and whore out those poor families from Sandy Hook in his ridiculous and unfounded zeal to do exactly what you're saying "no one on the Left has ever done".  What about Washington DC?  What about New York City?  See this:  http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-and-shotguns/  that names both Bloomberg (calling him a "zealot" on the issue) and Cuomo.   That's not disarming?
All of those are, essentially, local laws.  Some have been overturned through the courts, and some are being litigated now.  That's what happens in our system.  If a law is passed, it can be challenged, or overturned.  That's the process that we have.

I was talking about on a national level.  Notwithstanding any real fringe nut jobs of which I am not aware, no one on a national level on the left has espoused (that I have seen or heard) a plan to disarm the general population. 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: jsbru on November 29, 2016, 01:10:37 PM
I feel like "Factcheck.org" when you post. Swear to god.   

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-jobless-claims-rose-last-week-from-multi-decade-low-1479908061
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: jammindude on November 29, 2016, 01:25:46 PM
Y'all talking about unemployment need to come to Seattle. The trades are literally starving. My company just refused to fire an apprentice for insubordination JUST because we're so desperate for bodies, and there's no one available to replace him.

Everyone in the trades is working and people are flocking here because of how much we're booming.

2015/16 has been the single busiest year I've ever seen in my working history. (Almost 30 years)
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: jsbru on November 29, 2016, 01:27:42 PM
Not only that, but (speaking as a labor and employment lawyer here) "unemployment levels" is a stupid, meaningless statistic.  I say that because there is not a direct correlation to what is really important, which is employment rates.  Actually employment rates are low--abysmally so.  And since unemployment rate statistics are only based on the number of unemployment benefits claims filed, they don't tell you the whole story when people are out of work so long they cannot file for unemployment, or are so discouraged by the system that they do not file for unemployment.

As a labor and employment lawyer myself (albeit on the plaintiff's side, as you might have guessed), the point needs to be made that labor force participation rate decreases are not necessarily caused by a weak job market.

I give to you as a source, the bona fide, Koch-brothers certified, libertarian think-tank, AEI:
http://www.aei.org/publication/why-the-labor-force-participation-rate-may-not-rise-anytime-soon/

Quote
— Between 2000 and 2014, the participation rate fell by 4.5% points, from 67.1% to 62.6%. The aging of the population accounted for a 1.8% point decline in the participation rate, the increase in the in-education rate for 16 to 20 year olds also reduced the participation rate by 1.8% points, while the increase in the in-education rate for 21 to 25 year olds reduced it by an additional 0.6% points. Finally, the increase in the disability rate accounts for 1.2% points of the decline in the participation rate. All of these are long-term structural trends that began well before the 2008/2009 recession.

Quote
— Not for the first time, the labor force participation rate has undershot our expectations over the past year. Based on the household survey micro data, the reasons were (1) a faster-than-expected increase in the retired share of the population and, to a lesser extent, (2) a jump in the number of prime-age individuals who report that they do not want jobs. These forces have overwhelmed a decline in the discouraged worker share and a broadly flat profile for those out of the workforce for schooling and disability.

The decline seems to be almost completely caused by good or neutral factors (people going to school longer, people retiring earlier).  Only potential negative is the increase in the disability rate, but that's not necessarily a sign of economic desperation.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 29, 2016, 01:37:07 PM
Come on.  You know that half of the things Trump says are Fascist or Fascist-leaning.

The same could be said about Obama and especially Hillary Clinton.  People throw the word around, but it is a complex word that has been recently redefined to mean "extreme right wing", while simultaneously carrying forward things like interventionist economics and protectionist policy - things that both Obama and Trump are guilty of promoting.  I agree with the scholars who have recognized that fascism is what you find at both ends of the political spectrum.  Obama is way further left than Trump is right on that spectrum so calling Trump a fascist but giving Obama a pass smells of the same "lets call everyone racists and sexists to defame them in the public eye" kind of dirty pool.  Often, when the word fascist is used images of Nazi Germany pop into the mind, but Hitler was a proponent of "Nazism".  If you want to see examples of fascism in practice you have to look at pre WWII Italy and Japan, or today's Iran. 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: jsbru on November 29, 2016, 01:51:16 PM
I agree, Trump's flavor of semi-fascism reminds me more of 1920s Italy than 1930s Germany.

I know it's a word thrown around with not much respect for its true meaning, and like anything in political philosophy, it's defining a sort of nebulous concept, so even political philosophers will disagree as to what is "fascism."

I think the most common definition is the melding of populist economics (which are actually probably best described as left-wing) with strident right-wing/nationalist social policy (anti-civil rights, anti-immigrant, authoritarian, etc.).  In a way, it's the theoretical polar opposite of a libertarian, which are left-wing on social policy but right-wing on economics.

But even that definition does not go far enough.  I think for it to be typically fascist, you have to have the extra element of the power merger between private wealth and government in a fashion that the government uses its authoritarian powers to enrich private enterprise at the expense of the public coffers.  The result is corporate handouts funded by high government debt.

This last element is what differentiates fascist-populist economic policy from progressive-populist economic policy.  Because while government spending usually decreases economic inequality by redistributing capital in the form of paying jobs for the people (a very socialist goal), a fascist government will do the same thing, except for the purposes of purchasing political support from both the economic elites and its lower-level supporters.  All while the public's civil rights and right to dissent are stripped away, and the government coffers are bankrupt.  Bankrupting the government coffers is actually a right-wing strategy, because they prefer a crippled government that has no power to fight the interests of entrenched wealth.

That's why you see Republican administrations actually running UP government deficits, and Democratic administrations decreasing it.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: hefdaddy42 on November 29, 2016, 01:57:15 PM
Come on.  You know that half of the things Trump says are Fascist or Fascist-leaning.

The same could be said about Obama and especially Hillary Clinton.
Not really.

People throw the word around, but it is a complex word that has been recently redefined to mean "extreme right wing", while simultaneously carrying forward things like interventionist economics and protectionist policy - things that both Obama and Trump are guilty of promoting.  I agree with the scholars who have recognized that fascism is what you find at both ends of the political spectrum.  Obama is way further left than Trump is right on that spectrum so calling Trump a fascist but giving Obama a pass smells of the same "lets call everyone racists and sexists to defame them in the public eye" kind of dirty pool.
Not really.

Often, when the word fascist is used images of Nazi Germany pop into the mind, but Hitler was a proponent of "Nazism".  If you want to see examples of fascism in practice you have to look at pre WWII Italy and Japan, or today's Iran.
Yeah, that's why I didn't use the word "Nazi".
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: jsbru on November 29, 2016, 02:25:23 PM
And I just want to add, Trumps economic proposals are more than 50% of the reason why I call his campaign (so far, it has just been campaign rhetoric) "fascist."  The anti-immigrant, anti-minority, nationalist, authoritarian rhetoric really isn't even the major reason.

His proposal to institute massive tax cuts for the rich while simultaneously implementing a $1 Trillion federal spending program will achieve a very fascist goal: seriously bankrupting the federal government in order to buy political support.  When you couple this with trade protectionism, it's pretty much a boilerplate fascist agenda on the economic side of things.  If he does get his $1 Trillion spending program through, the jobs will almost certainly be via private contractors (so the corporate elite can skim most of the money off the top) with low pay and very few civil rights protections...mark my words.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: jsbru on November 29, 2016, 02:27:58 PM
Y'all talking about unemployment need to come to Seattle. The trades are literally starving. My company just refused to fire an apprentice for insubordination JUST because we're so desperate for bodies, and there's no one available to replace him.

Everyone in the trades is working and people are flocking here because of how much we're booming.

2015/16 has been the single busiest year I've ever seen in my working history. (Almost 30 years)

How much do these pay?  I think I'd rather do this than be a worker's rights attorney, especially in this political environment.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 29, 2016, 02:50:36 PM
And I just want to add, Trumps economic proposals are more than 50% of the reason why I call his campaign (so far, it has just been campaign rhetoric) "fascist."  The anti-immigrant, anti-minority, nationalist, authoritarian rhetoric really isn't even the major reason.

Funny, I haven't heard him say anything anti-(Legal)-immigrant, anti-(Law Abiding)-minority.  Nationalist (patriotic), yes, and he can be somewhat authoritarian, but the nation needs a boss so I give him a pass for now.  I'll take his outwardly bullish style over Obama's speak softly and carry an executive order pen style.

Quick question because I truly appreciate your level-headed and intellectually grounded posts.  How do you feel about Obama's releasing of many drug criminals out of prison?  Especially with his close ties to the Chicago cartel networks?  Do you subscribe to the idea that these people got bad raps and deserve release, or do you think there is favor making and cronyism at play?
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: jsbru on November 29, 2016, 03:12:42 PM
Quick question because I truly appreciate your level-headed and intellectually grounded posts.  How do you feel about Obama's releasing of many drug criminals out of prison?  Especially with his close ties to the Chicago cartel networks? Do you subscribe to the idea that these people got bad raps and deserve release, or do you think there is favor making and cronyism at play?

This is the first time I've ever heard that accusation, and I debate with anti-Obama people often.  I tried googling it, but found no credible evidence.

I think his pardoning of people for drug crimes reflects his belief that people shouldn't be locked up for decades for something that most liberals and even most on the libertarian-right don't think should be a jailable offense, and in some cases, even shouldn't be against the law.

Also, basically all of his commutations have been screened to include only non-violent offenders with good behavior in prison.  So that would rule out people suspected of belonging to a cartel.  He's supposedly commuted something like 774 people so far, so I can't possibly know the details about all of them.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 29, 2016, 06:06:55 PM
Quick question because I truly appreciate your level-headed and intellectually grounded posts.  How do you feel about Obama's releasing of many drug criminals out of prison?  Especially with his close ties to the Chicago cartel networks? Do you subscribe to the idea that these people got bad raps and deserve release, or do you think there is favor making and cronyism at play?

This is the first time I've ever heard that accusation, and I debate with anti-Obama people often.  I tried googling it, but found no credible evidence.

I think his pardoning of people for drug crimes reflects his belief that people shouldn't be locked up for decades for something that most liberals and even most on the libertarian-right don't think should be a jailable offense, and in some cases, even shouldn't be against the law.

Also, basically all of his commutations have been screened to include only non-violent offenders with good behavior in prison.  So that would rule out people suspected of belonging to a cartel.  He's supposedly commuted something like 774 people so far, so I can't possibly know the details about all of them.

Sounds like you are on the side that thinks Obama is just being a nice guy.  I hope you are correct, but think about that a bit.  Why drug and gun traffickers?  Why more than all 11 past presidents combined?  Over 800!  Why did Obama use US dollars to build massive infrastructure in Afghanistan, pay Iran billions, while doing everything in his power to make drug trafficking into the USA easier - leading to cheap smack all over the USA?  Couple the answers to these questions with his ties to Blago, Rezko, Emmanuel, and the subsequent rise of Chicago as the nations largest drug trafficking hub in parallel with his rise to power and you have pretty compelling circumstantial evidence that Obama is well connected to the drug world.     
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: jsbru on November 29, 2016, 06:48:19 PM
Probably because they investigated each case, and thought that they had served enough time?  A lot of the people commuted were serving life sentences or something like 20 year sentences for drug possession.  If you possess drugs anywhere in the same vicinity as a gun, you automatically get hit with federal gun charges, too.  I mean, I'm okay with these people going to jail for a bit, but 20 years to life seems a bit ridiculous to me.

They supposedly screened them for stuff like connections to gangs and violence.  Again, I haven't seen any credible evidence from non-right-wing media to back up the fact that any of these people had ties to drug or gun trafficking rings like you assert.

This country has a greater percentage of its population in prison than the USSR did during its Lenninist heyday.  We're pretty draconian about punishment here already.  Our drug and gun sentences are longer than any other country's, save for places like Singapore.  It doesn't seem to be helping.  Not to mention, this whole prison-industrial complex is dozens of times more costly per person to taxpayers than stuff like welfare.  It costs over $30,000 per year to keep someone in prison.

As for handing Iran cash, that story's been well-covered and investigated.  It was part of a multi-faceted deal that most people think is going to work out in America's favor:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-treasury-says-17-billion-transfer-to-iran-was-all-cash/2016/09/06/e9918216-7499-11e6-9781-49e591781754_story.html

Anything beyond that seems to be your typical right-wing conspiracy theory.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 29, 2016, 08:11:19 PM
Probably because they investigated each case, and thought that they had served enough time?  A lot of the people commuted were serving life sentences or something like 20 year sentences for drug possession.  If you possess drugs anywhere in the same vicinity as a gun, you automatically get hit with federal gun charges, too.  I mean, I'm okay with these people going to jail for a bit, but 20 years to life seems a bit ridiculous to me.

They supposedly screened them for stuff like connections to gangs and violence.  Again, I haven't seen any credible evidence from non-right-wing media to back up the fact that any of these people had ties to drug or gun trafficking rings like you assert.

This country has a greater percentage of its population in prison than the USSR did during its Lenninist heyday.  We're pretty draconian about punishment here already.  Our drug and gun sentences are longer than any other country's, save for places like Singapore.  It doesn't seem to be helping.  Not to mention, this whole prison-industrial complex is dozens of times more costly per person to taxpayers than stuff like welfare.  It costs over $30,000 per year to keep someone in prison.

As for handing Iran cash, that story's been well-covered and investigated.  It was part of a multi-faceted deal that most people think is going to work out in America's favor:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-treasury-says-17-billion-transfer-to-iran-was-all-cash/2016/09/06/e9918216-7499-11e6-9781-49e591781754_story.html

Anything beyond that seems to be your typical right-wing conspiracy theory.

I can accept that as all very rational and plausible.  The part I do take exception with is the idea that right-wing media is somehow less credible than left-wing media.  Sure, I'm not going to take Alex Jones seriously, nor am I going to take Al Sharpton seriously.  Grant Trump one little victory (yes I am a rush fan!) and that is he blew the lid off of the media circus, beat them at their own game, and basically verified that bias is very real on both sides.   
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on November 29, 2016, 08:56:42 PM
Y'all talking about unemployment need to come to Seattle. The trades are literally starving. My company just refused to fire an apprentice for insubordination JUST because we're so desperate for bodies, and there's no one available to replace him.

Everyone in the trades is working and people are flocking here because of how much we're booming.

2015/16 has been the single busiest year I've ever seen in my working history. (Almost 30 years)

Yo Jammin, I think you'd have a pool of skilled labor in Seattle if you'd get young people off the fucking bong nipple and into apprentice and training programs.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: jammindude on November 29, 2016, 11:11:17 PM
Y'all talking about unemployment need to come to Seattle. The trades are literally starving. My company just refused to fire an apprentice for insubordination JUST because we're so desperate for bodies, and there's no one available to replace him.

Everyone in the trades is working and people are flocking here because of how much we're booming.

2015/16 has been the single busiest year I've ever seen in my working history. (Almost 30 years)

How much do these pay?  I think I'd rather do this than be a worker's rights attorney, especially in this political environment.

Union Journeymen (a 5 year program) by contract make just under $47/hr with totally 100% paid, zero out of pocket benefits....and its a GREAT benefit package.   Totally green apprentices start off at "no less than" $18.50, and get full benefits after a certain amount of hours (which slips my mind at the moment).    You have to go to school.  Its free, but you dont get paid for it.   During the school year, you work 4 days a week and go to school for one.   Each year, you go up the pay scale.   From the bottom it goes up to 30%, then 40%, then 60% of journeyman wage.  There's also a retirement pension which pays out 100% if you've worked at least 30,000 hours (although they are currently trying to raise that to keep it funded.....it wouldn't really effect a new kid too much, but for a few of us who came in late and thought we were getting close, the carrot just moved further away)
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on November 30, 2016, 09:34:54 AM
Actually, the left are WAY more likely to hand the keys to the kingdom over to a new world Stalin or Hitler in my opinion.
You can think that if you want, but the right actually DID do this, or at least the closest thing I've ever seen to that.

When?  Where?
Come on.  You know that half of the things Trump says are Fascist or Fascist-leaning.

I don't "know" that at all.  I do know that what some are INTERPRETING Trump to be saying - or in some cases, falsely accusing him of saying - are fascist or fascist-leaning.   That's very different, and what I've been trying to tell JoeBros. for a while now.

Quote
Because they underestimated the capacity for harm in a Trump presidency. 

Here's something that amazes me:   I'm in a discussion abuot "white privilege" now, and I've been told several times that I'm incapable of FULLY understanding the plight of the black person (because I'm white), the gay person (because I'm straight.  Except for that one time in college, but I had been drinking), or the woman person (because I have a small, but entirely adequate and still working for the most part penis) and yet, we're REALLY quick to call the other person in Michigan or wherever incapable of making a sound decision.

Quote
All of those are, essentially, local laws.  Some have been overturned through the courts, and some are being litigated now.  That's what happens in our system.  If a law is passed, it can be challenged, or overturned.  That's the process that we have.

I was talking about on a national level.  Notwithstanding any real fringe nut jobs of which I am not aware, no one on a national level on the left has espoused (that I have seen or heard) a plan to disarm the general population.

Brady Bill?   
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: hefdaddy42 on November 30, 2016, 09:50:12 AM
And what part of the Brady Bill provides for disarming citizens of their legally obtained firearms?
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on November 30, 2016, 10:21:19 AM
I dunno.  It certainly cut down the list of possible weapons they could own.  Baby steps, right?  ;)
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: bosk1 on November 30, 2016, 10:58:11 AM
And what part of the Brady Bill provides for disarming citizens of their legally obtained firearms?
???  I'm not even sure how this is a valid question.  Seriously.  It's like asking what part of a state's traffic laws provide for regulating driving.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: hefdaddy42 on November 30, 2016, 12:56:14 PM
And what part of the Brady Bill provides for disarming citizens of their legally obtained firearms?
???  I'm not even sure how this is a valid question.  Seriously.  It's like asking what part of a state's traffic laws provide for regulating driving.
I wasn't talking about REGULATING.  I was talking specifically about DISARMING, which is the thrust of this conversation.

The Brady Bill instituted background checks for buying firearms from dealers, and prohibited certain persons from shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms.  It had nothing whatsoever to do with disarming citizens of weapons they already owned.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on November 30, 2016, 01:52:58 PM
And what part of the Brady Bill provides for disarming citizens of their legally obtained firearms?
???  I'm not even sure how this is a valid question.  Seriously.  It's like asking what part of a state's traffic laws provide for regulating driving.
I wasn't talking about REGULATING.  I was talking specifically about DISARMING, which is the thrust of this conversation.

The Brady Bill instituted background checks for buying firearms from dealers, and prohibited certain persons from shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms.  It had nothing whatsoever to do with disarming citizens of weapons they already owned.

Okay, so now the question is changing; that's not how I understood your initial request.  I'm not sure any national politician as EXPLICITLY asked, in a sponsored bill, that all citizens relinquish the guns they currently own (though I've shown that it HAS happened on the local level).   But there are people that mistakenly believe that it worked in Australia (I've already posted here data showing conclusively that that was not the case, and in fact gun and violent crimes went UP in the five to ten years after, and only started coming down when OTHER measures went into effect, and is now only slightly below that level before the ban).  Chris Murphy would implement that in a heartbeat if it was at all politically tenable.  But with over 100 measures that were presented to Congress and shot right down in the last six years, it's the same problem in reverse; why would any politician introduce a bill that is orders of magnitude more radical than the 100 before it that died a not-so-slow, not-so-painless death?
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: hefdaddy42 on November 30, 2016, 02:52:50 PM
Okay, so now the question is changing; that's not how I understood your initial request.
Not sure why. Here is where it came up (top of the page)

Remember, their first steps to power were parallel with modern progressivism: disarm the population, install politically correct propaganda networks, and redistribute the wealth.
I see that threat bandied about quite a bit from people on the right about people on the left.  I have yet to actually see anyone on the left ever propose a plan to disarm the population. 

I'm still waiting on Obama to institute the roundup that was threatened by many on the right when he was elected, and that caused ammo shortages all over the country by people trying to buy up the supply since they would soon be banned.  Well, he still has a month and a half, I guess he could still do it.

And I have been consistent the entire time.

There will never, ever be a national roundup of firearms.  Even if some politicians might fantasize about it in their wet dreams, it will never happen.  And it will never be a platform point of the Democratic party.  The only time such a thing is ever mentioned on a national level is when people on the right (usually conspiracy nuts) talk about it as a possibility in order to scare/rouse up the rabble. 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Prog Snob on November 30, 2016, 08:34:40 PM
Okay, so now the question is changing; that's not how I understood your initial request.
Not sure why. Here is where it came up (top of the page)

Remember, their first steps to power were parallel with modern progressivism: disarm the population, install politically correct propaganda networks, and redistribute the wealth.
I see that threat bandied about quite a bit from people on the right about people on the left.  I have yet to actually see anyone on the left ever propose a plan to disarm the population. 

I'm still waiting on Obama to institute the roundup that was threatened by many on the right when he was elected, and that caused ammo shortages all over the country by people trying to buy up the supply since they would soon be banned.  Well, he still has a month and a half, I guess he could still do it.

And I have been consistent the entire time.

There will never, ever be a national roundup of firearms.  Even if some politicians might fantasize about it in their wet dreams, it will never happen.  And it will never be a platform point of the Democratic party.  The only time such a thing is ever mentioned on a national level is when people on the right (usually conspiracy nuts) talk about it as a possibility in order to scare/rouse up the rabble.

Besides it being illogical, it would be as impossible as gathering all of the illegal immigrants to send them back home.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 01, 2016, 12:05:01 AM
Okay, so now the question is changing; that's not how I understood your initial request.
Not sure why. Here is where it came up (top of the page)

Remember, their first steps to power were parallel with modern progressivism: disarm the population, install politically correct propaganda networks, and redistribute the wealth.
I see that threat bandied about quite a bit from people on the right about people on the left.  I have yet to actually see anyone on the left ever propose a plan to disarm the population. 

I'm still waiting on Obama to institute the roundup that was threatened by many on the right when he was elected, and that caused ammo shortages all over the country by people trying to buy up the supply since they would soon be banned.  Well, he still has a month and a half, I guess he could still do it.

And I have been consistent the entire time.

There will never, ever be a national roundup of firearms.  Even if some politicians might fantasize about it in their wet dreams, it will never happen.  And it will never be a platform point of the Democratic party.  The only time such a thing is ever mentioned on a national level is when people on the right (usually conspiracy nuts) talk about it as a possibility in order to scare/rouse up the rabble.

Besides it being illogical, it would be as impossible as gathering all of the illegal immigrants to send them back home.

It's not impossible, simply pay them to leave.

As for gun "round ups", that has been contemplated and done in other countries so it could happen here.  But, just a ban on assault rifles criminalizes legal owners forcing them to release their guns to the Sherriff or to live as a government-made criminal despite having the constitutional right to be armed.

Let me ask you good folks something?  When you saw Star Wars did you root for Han Solo?  Or were you pulling for the Empire?  The reason why I ask is would Han Solo ever support stiff gun regulation?  Never.  Would he resist being a swaggering, womanizing, scoundrel who shoots FIRST in bar confrontations because it isn't "politically correct"?  If he's the image of everything supposedly wrong with modern society, why do we love him so much?  Why did the fans scream in retaliation when Lucas tried to smooth his rough edges?  Face it, we *love* that he shot first.  Why?  Because we love scoundrels.  Heck, I'll bet Trump's *real* numbers went up when he was caught blabbing about pussy grabbing.  (whoa, that rhymes!)  Anyway, so embrace your inner scoundrel.  Do right by good people and put a big Johnny Rotten middle finger up against the bloated, dehumanizing systems of the world.  They are the empire, we are the rebellion.   :xbones :yarr :xbones

 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Prog Snob on December 01, 2016, 12:42:08 AM
It's not impossible, simply pay them to leave.

I'm trying to be nice, but that's one of the most absurd and ludicrous things I've ever heard. You come off as a right-winger and you think putting aside a budget to pay millions of illegal immigrants to leave is a good idea? What?

I don't care if the good ones stay. The criminals should be booted out - not paid to leave.

"Thank you for driving up crime in our country. Here is a nice consolation prize for your journey home."

As for gun "round ups", that has been contemplated and done in other countries so it could happen here.  But, just a ban on assault rifles criminalizes legal owners forcing them to release their guns to the Sherriff or to live as a government-made criminal despite having the constitutional right to be armed.

Simple solution to that.

"Officer, I don't have that rifle anymore. I lost in when I was hunting."

Like Hef said, that gun round-up is never going to happen here.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 01, 2016, 12:48:19 AM
It's not impossible, simply pay them to leave.

I'm trying to be nice, but that's one of the most absurd and ludicrous things I've ever heard. You come off as a right-winger and you think putting aside a budget to pay millions of illegal immigrants to leave is a good idea? What?


Think about the cost of mass deportation, then think about the cost of self deportation.  This is also why I appreciate Trump.  While people are calling him stupid he is actually solving real problems.  Also, not really a right winger, more a centrist.  I'd love to see universal healthcare for example.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Prog Snob on December 01, 2016, 12:54:29 AM
It's not impossible, simply pay them to leave.

I'm trying to be nice, but that's one of the most absurd and ludicrous things I've ever heard. You come off as a right-winger and you think putting aside a budget to pay millions of illegal immigrants to leave is a good idea? What?


Think about the cost of mass deportation, then think about the cost of self deportation.  This is also why I appreciate Trump.  While people are calling him stupid he is actually solving real problems.  Also, not really a right winger, more a centrist.  I'd love to see universal healthcare for example.

Universal health care. Massive deportation bribes. You must be loaded.  :lol
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 01, 2016, 01:19:57 AM
It's not impossible, simply pay them to leave.

I'm trying to be nice, but that's one of the most absurd and ludicrous things I've ever heard. You come off as a right-winger and you think putting aside a budget to pay millions of illegal immigrants to leave is a good idea? What?


Think about the cost of mass deportation, then think about the cost of self deportation.  This is also why I appreciate Trump.  While people are calling him stupid he is actually solving real problems.  Also, not really a right winger, more a centrist.  I'd love to see universal healthcare for example.

Universal health care. Massive deportation bribes. You must be loaded.  :lol

Why not?  Instead of paying people to deport people, just pay people to leave.  It's less costly, more efficient, and WAY more humane.  I like the idea.  I don't like the idea of rounding up people in chains and deporting them on cramped buses.  Heck, give them and check and a 1st class ticket home where they can start a new life with the money the US would have spent treating them like animals.  I see no issue with my thinking.  Unrealistic?  Well, that is also what everyone said about Trump winning now isn't it?
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Prog Snob on December 01, 2016, 01:24:48 AM
It's not impossible, simply pay them to leave.

I'm trying to be nice, but that's one of the most absurd and ludicrous things I've ever heard. You come off as a right-winger and you think putting aside a budget to pay millions of illegal immigrants to leave is a good idea? What?


Think about the cost of mass deportation, then think about the cost of self deportation.  This is also why I appreciate Trump.  While people are calling him stupid he is actually solving real problems.  Also, not really a right winger, more a centrist.  I'd love to see universal healthcare for example.

Universal health care. Massive deportation bribes. You must be loaded.  :lol

Why not?  Instead of paying people to deport people, just pay people to leave.  It's less costly, more efficient, and WAY more humane.  I like the idea.  I don't like the idea of rounding up people in chains and deporting them on cramped buses.  Heck, give them and check and a 1st class ticket home where they can start a new life with the money the US would have spent treating them like animals.  I see no issue with my thinking.  Unrealistic?  Well, that is also what everyone said about Trump winning now isn't it?

Paying people to leave? It's as unrealistic as rounding up all of the guns. I think we should focus on something more viable. Illegal immigrant criminals should not be paid US Dollars to leave. Sorry. There is just so much wrong with that. They're already costing us money going through our correctional system and health care system.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 01, 2016, 01:37:41 AM
It's not impossible, simply pay them to leave.

I'm trying to be nice, but that's one of the most absurd and ludicrous things I've ever heard. You come off as a right-winger and you think putting aside a budget to pay millions of illegal immigrants to leave is a good idea? What?


Think about the cost of mass deportation, then think about the cost of self deportation.  This is also why I appreciate Trump.  While people are calling him stupid he is actually solving real problems.  Also, not really a right winger, more a centrist.  I'd love to see universal healthcare for example.

Universal health care. Massive deportation bribes. You must be loaded.  :lol

Why not?  Instead of paying people to deport people, just pay people to leave.  It's less costly, more efficient, and WAY more humane.  I like the idea.  I don't like the idea of rounding up people in chains and deporting them on cramped buses.  Heck, give them and check and a 1st class ticket home where they can start a new life with the money the US would have spent treating them like animals.  I see no issue with my thinking.  Unrealistic?  Well, that is also what everyone said about Trump winning now isn't it?

Paying people to leave? It's as unrealistic as rounding up all of the guns. I think we should focus on something more viable. Illegal immigrant criminals should not be paid US Dollars to leave. Sorry. There is just so much wrong with that. They're already costing us money going through our correctional system and health care system.

On this we agree.  Violent criminals should be kicked out forcefully.  People who just came here seeking a better life should be offered a fast track to citizenship or paid to leave.  Either way costs money, so give them the option of just taking the money.  Maybe they will do something good with it.  There is more potential for good by putting the money in their hands than having the government spend it to treat them like cattle.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Prog Snob on December 01, 2016, 01:42:42 AM
I still don't agree with handing them money to leave. Alas, we can't all agree on everything.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: PowerSlave on December 01, 2016, 02:28:58 AM
If you pay people to leave, what's stopping them and others from coming across the border just for a free pay day? Instead of ridding yourself of an issue, you'd balloon the issue. Some people would probably use it as a lifestyle.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 01, 2016, 02:56:56 AM
If you pay people to leave, what's stopping them and others from coming across the border just for a free pay day? Instead of ridding yourself of an issue, you'd balloon the issue. Some people would probably use it as a lifestyle.

In order for self deportation to work we need better border security and immigrant tracking/profiling first.  I'm not really thinking wall here, I think there are more effective and less expensive solutions border security solutions.  Actually, before any kind of exodus of illegals from the USA, better border management has to be in place.  I also believe the endeavor needs to be beneficial to the immigrants too.  If people are living good productive lives here, then fast track them to citizenship.  But if they are struggling or gaming the system or contributing to social problems, they either accept deportation on their own or they are forcefully removed, but only as a last resort.  I do believe that there are ways to normalize immigration without treating people like animals. 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on December 01, 2016, 05:30:34 AM
I don't see how paying people to self deport fixes anything, and surely will create far more issues than it solves.  The assumptions one needs to make in order for this to be even remotely feasible require the suspension of rational thought IMO.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on December 01, 2016, 08:57:30 AM
I think the most common definition is the melding of populist economics (which are actually probably best described as left-wing) with strident right-wing/nationalist social policy (anti-civil rights, anti-immigrant, authoritarian, etc.).  In a way, it's the theoretical polar opposite of a libertarian, which are left-wing on social policy but right-wing on economics.

I agree with most (probably all) of this, but it's interesting to note that I get called a "fascist" almost as much as, if not more than, anything else. 

It's come to be the word du jour for "anything that's not me", I think.  I say that to be funny more than any cogent analysis, but from an accuracy standpoint, it's not far off.

Quote
But even that definition does not go far enough.  I think for it to be typically fascist, you have to have the extra element of the power merger between private wealth and government in a fashion that the government uses its authoritarian powers to enrich private enterprise at the expense of the public coffers.  The result is corporate handouts funded by high government debt.

This last element is what differentiates fascist-populist economic policy from progressive-populist economic policy.  Because while government spending usually decreases economic inequality by redistributing capital in the form of paying jobs for the people (a very socialist goal), a fascist government will do the same thing, except for the purposes of purchasing political support from both the economic elites and its lower-level supporters.  All while the public's civil rights and right to dissent are stripped away, and the government coffers are bankrupt.  Bankrupting the government coffers is actually a right-wing strategy, because they prefer a crippled government that has no power to fight the interests of entrenched wealth.

That's why you see Republican administrations actually running UP government deficits, and Democratic administrations decreasing it.

See, you were right on the mark, and then blew it at the end.   The last eight years is exactly what you describe in the previous two paragraphs, and then go and try to pin it all on the "REPUBLICANS".  Like clock work.   Cutting back room deals with Big Pharma, guaranteeing them profits in order to support legislation that redistributes wealth is EXACTLY what you're talking about, and EXACTLY what Barack did as one of his first actions in office.    I firmly and unequivocally believe that what many are calling the "PC movement" (I try not to, though I douse that, as I don't have a better name for it) is just as chilling to the right to peaceful expression of view points as any stereotypical "right-wing" measures.

Now, let me be clear:  I'm not doing the exact same thing back at you, because it's NOT a "Democrat" thing.  Bill Clinton didn't do this when he was in office.  These things are not "left/right" things.  In my opinion, they are intellectual failings, which we see on both sides of the aisle. 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: jsbru on December 01, 2016, 10:33:30 AM
I don't disagree that similar warning signs haven't happened during the Obama administration.  I think this is more of a reflection of the realities of our political system rather than Obama's actual political agenda or platform.  He also raised taxes on rich people to lower the deficit, and the deficit was indeed cut by about 2/3rds.  Balancing the government's budget is actually an impediment to fascism by my definition, whether or not you agree with those taxes or not.  And his signature legislation actually gave a lot of poor and lower-middle class people privileges--instead of taking them away.

However, since Citizens United, how is any party supposed to get anything done without making back-room deals with the very powerful industries that finance their campaigns?

I think this notion that our country is drifting to a more "fascist" state didn't start with Trump.  It's been going on for a while.  And I'm not trying to be hyperbolic with that word...I don't think we're there yet.  But I think we are drifting toward that model...where the government is there to enrich the powerful rather than empower the demos.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on December 01, 2016, 10:48:59 AM
Simple solution to that.

"Officer, I don't have that rifle anymore. I lost in when I was hunting."

Like Hef said, that gun round-up is never going to happen here.

I don't disagree, but it's funny how often the arguments here do not pay enough homage to the property of symmetry.   "TRUMP'S FACISM"TM isn't going to happen here either, but somehow the argument doesn't hold water there, even though it should for the same reasons.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on December 01, 2016, 11:19:40 AM
I don't disagree that similar warning signs haven't happened during the Obama administration.  I think this is more of a reflection of the realities of our political system rather than Obama's actual political agenda or platform.  He also raised taxes on rich people to lower the deficit, and the deficit was indeed cut by about 2/3rds.  Balancing the government's budget is actually an impediment to fascism by my definition, whether or not you agree with those taxes or not.  And his signature legislation actually gave a lot of poor and lower-middle class people privileges--instead of taking them away.

However, since Citizens United, how is any party supposed to get anything done without making back-room deals with the very powerful industries that finance their campaigns?

I think this notion that our country is drifting to a more "fascist" state didn't start with Trump.  It's been going on for a while.  And I'm not trying to be hyperbolic with that word...I don't think we're there yet.  But I think we are drifting toward that model...where the government is there to enrich the powerful rather than empower the demos.

I like this line of thought, especially the last sentence, even if I disagree where the rubber meets the road.   I think that last sentence could just as equally apply to the increasing focus on special interest groups, and the increasing need to create "enemies" of the State.  As I discuss this with you more and more, I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that this is an issue not of "philosophy" or "ideology" - "Hi, I'm a FACIST!" - but rather one of strategy. 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 19, 2016, 12:06:37 AM
Well now that the dust has settled, this:

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/its-official-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/

But it is a sad day for the USA when headlines are reading "Electoral College may Elect Trump Tomorrow..."  The anti-trump crowd are showing their true colors for sure and those colors are not consistent with the type of character necessary to identify and select a competent leader.  I mean, all the hubbub about hackers, yet no discourse on the fact that what the hackers exposed was serious DNC corruption.  I'll take hackers over corrupt politicians any day.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: gmillerdrake on December 19, 2016, 07:59:05 AM
Well now that the dust has settled, this:

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/its-official-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/

But it is a sad day for the USA when headlines are reading "Electoral College may Elect Trump Tomorrow..."  The anti-trump crowd are showing their true colors for sure and those colors are not consistent with the type of character necessary to identify and select a competent leader.  I mean, all the hubbub about hackers, yet no discourse on the fact that what the hackers exposed was serious DNC corruption.  I'll take hackers over corrupt politicians any day.

I don't think it should have ever been a question as to why she was winning the popular vote....it was always due to the large disparity that California produced. And I think that's why the only 'people' harping on the popular vote deal are the crazy side of the Dem train because most even keeled 'free' thinkers understand that she only won that popular vote because of California.

I mean whether you win the game 2-1 or 12-1....it only counts as one win. She won California....big whoop....the difference in votes means jack dookie drawers.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Chino on December 19, 2016, 08:04:29 AM
(http://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Screen-shot-2016-11-10-at-9.57.16-AM.png)
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: gmillerdrake on December 19, 2016, 08:55:43 AM
(http://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Screen-shot-2016-11-10-at-9.57.16-AM.png)

It's kind of funny how the rhetoric has reversed....all based off of either winning or losing. Trumps touting all of Hillary's 'go to' lines she used prior to losing the electoral college....and she's touting all of his 'go to lines' he used prior to winning it.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 19, 2016, 11:59:24 AM
(http://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Screen-shot-2016-11-10-at-9.57.16-AM.png)

I think many people have made this mistake.  Right now many people who supported Hillary are making this same mistake.  Without the electoral college the most populated states would elect every president.  So the election process we have is actually pretty genius.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Chino on December 19, 2016, 12:45:32 PM
(http://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Screen-shot-2016-11-10-at-9.57.16-AM.png)

I think many people have made this mistake.  Right now many people who supported Hillary are making this same mistake.  Without the electoral college the most populated states would elect every president.  So the election process we have is actually pretty genius.

Except that it persuades (for better or for worse) potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to not bother voting as their states are typically dominated by one side or the other. How many Trump supporters stayed home in California, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and Maryland? How many Hillary supporters stayed home in Idaho, Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota, and West Virginia? A system that makes a large percentage of the population feel as though their vote means nothing seems pretty shitty to me. If every vote really counted, that 2,800,000 vote lead that Hillary has now would look much, much different. 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: cramx3 on December 19, 2016, 12:51:18 PM
It's kind of funny how the rhetoric has reversed....all based off of either winning or losing. Trumps touting all of Hillary's 'go to' lines she used prior to losing the electoral college....and she's touting all of his 'go to lines' he used prior to winning it.

Yea pretty much this.  It seems that the results influence the opinions on the process based on whether the system worked for them not the value of the system itself.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 19, 2016, 01:18:52 PM
(http://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Screen-shot-2016-11-10-at-9.57.16-AM.png)

I think many people have made this mistake.  Right now many people who supported Hillary are making this same mistake.  Without the electoral college the most populated states would elect every president.  So the election process we have is actually pretty genius.

Except that it persuades (for better or for worse) potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to not bother voting as their states are typically dominated by one side or the other. How many Trump supporters stayed home in California, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and Maryland? How many Hillary supporters stayed home in Idaho, Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota, and West Virginia? A system that makes a large percentage of the population feel as though their vote means nothing seems pretty shitty to me. If every vote really counted, that 2,800,000 vote lead that Hillary has now would look much, much different.

The people who created our process knew that pure democracies lead to tyranny.  A perfect democracy of three, two wolves and a sheep, voting on what's for dinner is never going to result in a fair outcome.  Hillary winning on a landslide in a few highly populated counties would not have been fair either.  Yes, you are correct that some people's votes are somewhat nullified by region, but without the process we have, very large blocks of votes (like the entire group of flyover states) would be nullified.  So the trade off is Hillary was granted the head start that California and New York gave her (very large head start).  All she needed to do was bring home a few more swing states and she'd be President.  She lost fair and square.  People need to get over it.  I'm personally ecstatic because to millions she represented lawlessness, corruption, and elitism.  Not really sure why anyone would support her. 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Chino on December 19, 2016, 01:30:38 PM
(http://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Screen-shot-2016-11-10-at-9.57.16-AM.png)

I think many people have made this mistake.  Right now many people who supported Hillary are making this same mistake.  Without the electoral college the most populated states would elect every president.  So the election process we have is actually pretty genius.

Except that it persuades (for better or for worse) potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to not bother voting as their states are typically dominated by one side or the other. How many Trump supporters stayed home in California, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and Maryland? How many Hillary supporters stayed home in Idaho, Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota, and West Virginia? A system that makes a large percentage of the population feel as though their vote means nothing seems pretty shitty to me. If every vote really counted, that 2,800,000 vote lead that Hillary has now would look much, much different.

The people who created our process knew that pure democracies lead to tyranny.  A perfect democracy of three, two wolves and a sheep, voting on what's for dinner is never going to result in a fair outcome.  Hillary winning on a landslide in a few highly populated counties would not have been fair either.  Yes, you are correct that some people's votes are somewhat nullified by region, but without the process we have, very large blocks of votes (like the entire group of flyover states) would be nullified.  So the trade off is Hillary was granted the head start that California and New York gave her (very large head start).  All she needed to do was bring home a few more swing states and she'd be President.  She lost fair and square.  People need to get over it. 

Just to make it clear, I really despise Hillary Clinton. As far as the people who created the process go, they didn't know what the future held. They left room and a process for correction, as they were smart enough to know that in time things would change, and that they as men were capable of making mistakes that may need correcting. They never envisioned a society where a candidate could say something like "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive" at 3AM on Twitter and have a hundred million people hear about it by morning.

Quote
I'm personally ecstatic because to millions she represented lawlessness, corruption, and elitism.  Not really sure why anyone would support *insert politically correct assignment of gender here*.

And there's 2.8 million people whose votes basically mean nothing who are saying the exact same thing, and more, about Trump.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 19, 2016, 02:04:24 PM
And there's 2.8 million people whose votes basically mean nothing who are saying the exact same thing, and more, about Trump.

True, but it is not a popular vote race.  Never has been.  The system actually worked and when you look at the results map you can see that if Hillary had one it would have been done so on the votes of a handful of major metropolitan areas.  The DNC now needs to focus on winning over the rest of the nation.  Problem is they will never do that with identity politics that vilify rural America.  From that perspective the DNC and Hill's campaign were just stupid in their overall strategy - which shows us that they would have been incompetent leaders.  People may not like Trump's strategy, but it worked and it indicates that him and his people every bit smart enough to deal with the job at hand.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 19, 2016, 04:18:03 PM
Well, there it is.  The electoral college did their jobs and voted Trump into office.  Let's hope he does a good job for everyone.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: El Barto on December 19, 2016, 04:42:22 PM
Well, technically part of its job was to insure that an ignorant mob didn't elect a jackass, so we'll call it a draw.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 19, 2016, 05:03:24 PM
Well, technically part of its job was to insure that an ignorant mob didn't elect a jackass, so we'll call it a draw.

This attitude is the very reason why your side lost.  We are not ignorant, we are not a mob, and despite Trump's jackass tendencies he's not a criminal elitist like his former opponent is proven to be.  Even Obama has come out and admitted that Hills lost by neglecting flyover USA.  You cannot win with only the votes of the truly ignorant mob inhabiting the nation's Mos Eisleys.  And yes, this election has proven the urban mob, the college snowflakes, and their "professors" are far more ignorant than the rural mob.     
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: TL on December 19, 2016, 05:08:14 PM
And there's 2.8 million people whose votes basically mean nothing who are saying the exact same thing, and more, about Trump.

True, but it is not a popular vote race.  Never has been.  The system actually worked and when you look at the results map you can see that if Hillary had one it would have been done so on the votes of a handful of major metropolitan areas.  The DNC now needs to focus on winning over the rest of the nation.
So why do you seem to think votes from Americans living in more densely populated areas are less valid than votes from Americans living in less densely populated areas?
Responding to "One candidate had a significant popular vote lead" with "But those voters live in cities!" is mind mindbogglingly silly. It's basically a non-sequitur.

I say this as someone from a country where rural/less populated areas often vote for the more left wing parties. Making an argument that certain people's votes are more or less meaningful because of where they live or who they voted for is ridiculous.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 19, 2016, 05:27:16 PM
And there's 2.8 million people whose votes basically mean nothing who are saying the exact same thing, and more, about Trump.

True, but it is not a popular vote race.  Never has been.  The system actually worked and when you look at the results map you can see that if Hillary had one it would have been done so on the votes of a handful of major metropolitan areas.  The DNC now needs to focus on winning over the rest of the nation.
So why do you seem to think votes from Americans living in more densely populated areas are less valid than votes from Americans living in less densely populated areas?
Responding to "One candidate had a significant popular vote lead" with "But those voters live in cities!" is mind mindbogglingly silly. It's basically a non-sequitur.

I say this as someone from a country where rural/less populated areas often vote for the more left wing parties. Making an argument that certain people's votes are more or less meaningful because of where they live or who they voted for is ridiculous.

Actually in the USA all votes are equal.  A person in California who voted for Hillary got as much out of their vote as a New Yorker voting for Trump did.  The California vote didn't help Hillary win and the New York vote didn't help Trump win.  So it only seems like one side's votes carry more weight, but they don't when you break it down.  If Hillary had won, people in Oklahoma (all red) would be feeling like their vote didn't matter either.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: El Barto on December 19, 2016, 05:45:44 PM
Well, technically part of its job was to insure that an ignorant mob didn't elect a jackass, so we'll call it a draw.

This attitude is the very reason why your side lost.  We are not ignorant, we are not a mob, and despite Trump's jackass tendencies he's not a criminal elitist like his former opponent is proven to be.  Even Obama has come out and admitted that Hills lost by neglecting flyover USA.  You cannot win with only the votes of the truly ignorant mob inhabiting the nation's Mos Eisleys.  And yes, this election has proven the urban mob, the college snowflakes, and their "professors" are far more ignorant than the rural mob.   
Actually, my side was never in the running.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on December 19, 2016, 05:50:52 PM
And there's 2.8 million people whose votes basically mean nothing who are saying the exact same thing, and more, about Trump.

True, but it is not a popular vote race.  Never has been.  The system actually worked and when you look at the results map you can see that if Hillary had one it would have been done so on the votes of a handful of major metropolitan areas.  The DNC now needs to focus on winning over the rest of the nation.
So why do you seem to think votes from Americans living in more densely populated areas are less valid than votes from Americans living in less densely populated areas?
Responding to "One candidate had a significant popular vote lead" with "But those voters live in cities!" is mind mindbogglingly silly. It's basically a non-sequitur.

I say this as someone from a country where rural/less populated areas often vote for the more left wing parties. Making an argument that certain people's votes are more or less meaningful because of where they live or who they voted for is ridiculous.

Actually in the USA all votes are equal.  A person in California who voted for Hillary got as much out of their vote as a New Yorker voting for Trump did.  The California vote didn't help Hillary win and the New York vote didn't help Trump win.  So it only seems like one side's votes carry more weight, but they don't when you break it down.  If Hillary had won, people in Oklahoma (all red) would be feeling like their vote didn't matter either.

That is 100% not correct.  Due to the electoral college, voters in some states are worth more than others.
Generally, Votes in states with higher populations are worth less per electoral vote than states with lower populations.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: TL on December 19, 2016, 05:54:16 PM
And there's 2.8 million people whose votes basically mean nothing who are saying the exact same thing, and more, about Trump.

True, but it is not a popular vote race.  Never has been.  The system actually worked and when you look at the results map you can see that if Hillary had one it would have been done so on the votes of a handful of major metropolitan areas.  The DNC now needs to focus on winning over the rest of the nation.
So why do you seem to think votes from Americans living in more densely populated areas are less valid than votes from Americans living in less densely populated areas?
Responding to "One candidate had a significant popular vote lead" with "But those voters live in cities!" is mind mindbogglingly silly. It's basically a non-sequitur.

I say this as someone from a country where rural/less populated areas often vote for the more left wing parties. Making an argument that certain people's votes are more or less meaningful because of where they live or who they voted for is ridiculous.

Actually in the USA all votes are equal.  A person in California who voted for Hillary got as much out of their vote as a New Yorker voting for Trump did.  The California vote didn't help Hillary win and the New York vote didn't help Trump win.  So it only seems like one side's votes carry more weight, but they don't when you break it down.  If Hillary had won, people in Oklahoma (all red) would be feeling like their vote didn't matter either.

That is 100% not correct.  Due to the electoral college, voters in some states are worth more than others.
Exactly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

So 7th, if we're in agreement that a person's vote isn't more or less valid because of where they live or because of their political preference, why have a system that circumvents the will of a plurality of Americans?
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 19, 2016, 06:13:16 PM
And there's 2.8 million people whose votes basically mean nothing who are saying the exact same thing, and more, about Trump.

True, but it is not a popular vote race.  Never has been.  The system actually worked and when you look at the results map you can see that if Hillary had one it would have been done so on the votes of a handful of major metropolitan areas.  The DNC now needs to focus on winning over the rest of the nation.
So why do you seem to think votes from Americans living in more densely populated areas are less valid than votes from Americans living in less densely populated areas?
Responding to "One candidate had a significant popular vote lead" with "But those voters live in cities!" is mind mindbogglingly silly. It's basically a non-sequitur.

I say this as someone from a country where rural/less populated areas often vote for the more left wing parties. Making an argument that certain people's votes are more or less meaningful because of where they live or who they voted for is ridiculous.

Actually in the USA all votes are equal.  A person in California who voted for Hillary got as much out of their vote as a New Yorker voting for Trump did.  The California vote didn't help Hillary win and the New York vote didn't help Trump win.  So it only seems like one side's votes carry more weight, but they don't when you break it down.  If Hillary had won, people in Oklahoma (all red) would be feeling like their vote didn't matter either.

That is 100% not correct.  Due to the electoral college, voters in some states are worth more than others.
Generally, Votes in states with higher populations are worth less per electoral vote than states with lower populations.

Nonsense.  The lower population states have lower electoral values so it evens out.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on December 19, 2016, 06:20:06 PM
And there's 2.8 million people whose votes basically mean nothing who are saying the exact same thing, and more, about Trump.

True, but it is not a popular vote race.  Never has been.  The system actually worked and when you look at the results map you can see that if Hillary had one it would have been done so on the votes of a handful of major metropolitan areas.  The DNC now needs to focus on winning over the rest of the nation.
So why do you seem to think votes from Americans living in more densely populated areas are less valid than votes from Americans living in less densely populated areas?
Responding to "One candidate had a significant popular vote lead" with "But those voters live in cities!" is mind mindbogglingly silly. It's basically a non-sequitur.

I say this as someone from a country where rural/less populated areas often vote for the more left wing parties. Making an argument that certain people's votes are more or less meaningful because of where they live or who they voted for is ridiculous.

Actually in the USA all votes are equal.  A person in California who voted for Hillary got as much out of their vote as a New Yorker voting for Trump did.  The California vote didn't help Hillary win and the New York vote didn't help Trump win.  So it only seems like one side's votes carry more weight, but they don't when you break it down.  If Hillary had won, people in Oklahoma (all red) would be feeling like their vote didn't matter either.

That is 100% not correct.  Due to the electoral college, voters in some states are worth more than others.
Generally, Votes in states with higher populations are worth less per electoral vote than states with lower populations.

Nonsense.  The lower population states have lower electoral values so it evens out.

Cmon dude.  Watch the video TL posted.  It makes it very simple to understand.....it is simple math.  It is not up for debate, it is 100% fact, and isnt anything new.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: TL on December 19, 2016, 06:25:18 PM
Additionally, there are measures to make sure smaller states get representation, such as every state getting two senators regardless of population.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 19, 2016, 06:26:39 PM
And there's 2.8 million people whose votes basically mean nothing who are saying the exact same thing, and more, about Trump.

True, but it is not a popular vote race.  Never has been.  The system actually worked and when you look at the results map you can see that if Hillary had one it would have been done so on the votes of a handful of major metropolitan areas.  The DNC now needs to focus on winning over the rest of the nation.
So why do you seem to think votes from Americans living in more densely populated areas are less valid than votes from Americans living in less densely populated areas?
Responding to "One candidate had a significant popular vote lead" with "But those voters live in cities!" is mind mindbogglingly silly. It's basically a non-sequitur.

I say this as someone from a country where rural/less populated areas often vote for the more left wing parties. Making an argument that certain people's votes are more or less meaningful because of where they live or who they voted for is ridiculous.

Actually in the USA all votes are equal.  A person in California who voted for Hillary got as much out of their vote as a New Yorker voting for Trump did.  The California vote didn't help Hillary win and the New York vote didn't help Trump win.  So it only seems like one side's votes carry more weight, but they don't when you break it down.  If Hillary had won, people in Oklahoma (all red) would be feeling like their vote didn't matter either.

That is 100% not correct.  Due to the electoral college, voters in some states are worth more than others.
Exactly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

So 7th, if we're in agreement that a person's vote isn't more or less valid because of where they live or because of their political preference, why have a system that circumvents the will of a plurality of Americans?

Because a pure democracy ultimately leads to mob rule.  The video you linked approached pure democracy as if it is desirable.  Did you see the two wolves and a sheep example I posted above?  Pure democracies fail the second a majority want the wrong thing.

If the DNC wants to run the show again, they will need to *drop* political correctness, embrace middle America, and focus on progress over identity politics.  Since they are not likely to do this, they will continue to lose and frankly we'll probably have a dynasty of Trumps for year to come.       
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 19, 2016, 06:33:43 PM
Cmon dude.  Watch the video TL posted.  It makes it very simple to understand.....it is simple math.  It is not up for debate, it is 100% fact, and isnt anything new.

The video is wrong from the get go.  It starts "In a fair democracy..." which there is no such thing.  It takes more than simple math to determine why the EC is fair and necessary.  A pure democracy is rarely fair which is why we don't do it.  100% fact, not up for debate.

A good example are the video's like and dislike numbers - a purely democratic indicator.  Likes are WAY greater than dislikes, but the video is dead wrong factually.  This is exactly how SO many people have been brainwashed by leftist conditioning.  The information sounds so good and correct, but when you break it down it's all wrong.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on December 19, 2016, 06:34:54 PM

Because a pure democracy ultimately leads to mob rule.  The video you linked approached pure democracy as if it is desirable.  Did you see the two wolves and a sheep example I posted above?  Pure democracies fail the second a majority want the wrong thing.

If the DNC wants to run the show again, they will need to *drop* political correctness, embrace middle America, and focus on progress over identity politics.  Since they are not likely to do this, they will continue to lose and frankly we'll probably have a dynasty of Trumps for year to come.     

Nice try avoiding the question.

The Electoral College is not a fair or appropriate method to address your concern of mob rule.
It creates a system where we do not get equal representation and weighting for our vote.
You dont want a true democracy?  Fine.  But the Electoral College does not work for a representative government either.
The votes are not equal.

So, do you take back your "nonsense" position, and agree that not all votes count equally?
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on December 19, 2016, 06:36:49 PM
Cmon dude.  Watch the video TL posted.  It makes it very simple to understand.....it is simple math.  It is not up for debate, it is 100% fact, and isnt anything new.

The video is wrong from the get go.  It starts "In a fair democracy..." which there is no such thing.  It takes more than simple math to determine why the EC is fair and necessary.  A pure democracy is rarely fair which is why we don't do it.  100% fact, not up for debate.

A good example are the video's like and dislike numbers - a purely democratic indicator.  Likes are WAY greater than dislikes, but the video is dead wrong factually.  This is exactly how SO many people have been brainwashed by leftist conditioning.  The information sounds so good and correct, but when you break it down it's all wrong.

Red Herrings.   So many that I will eat fish for a week!  LOL

Simple question.  In the current electoral college system, are all votes weighted equally?

or

Point out where the video is wrong.



EDIT:  Just keep it simple.  Take the population of a state, divide it by the number of electoral votes.  No need for red herrings and straw men.  It is simple math my elementary school kids can do.  The vote in each state has a different value.  Plain math.  No need to inject any politics.  This has been an obvious fact for a LONG time, and is not in dispute.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 19, 2016, 06:44:57 PM

Because a pure democracy ultimately leads to mob rule.  The video you linked approached pure democracy as if it is desirable.  Did you see the two wolves and a sheep example I posted above?  Pure democracies fail the second a majority want the wrong thing.

If the DNC wants to run the show again, they will need to *drop* political correctness, embrace middle America, and focus on progress over identity politics.  Since they are not likely to do this, they will continue to lose and frankly we'll probably have a dynasty of Trumps for year to come.     

Nice try avoiding the question.

The Electoral College is not a fair or appropriate method to address your concern of mob rule.
It creates a system where we do not get equal representation and weighting for our vote.
You dont want a true democracy?  Fine.  But the Electoral College does not work for a representative government either.
The votes are not equal.

So, do you take back your "nonsense" position, and agree that not all votes count equally?

I can't because I honestly don't see where my vote is any different than anyone else's.  I voted for Romney in 2012, in a previously blue state, he still lost.  I voted for Obama in 2008 in a previously red state and he won.  The value of my vote was the same in both elections.  Like I said, a California vote for Hillary carried the same exact weight as a Trump vote in Oklahoma.  Trump just happened to win more states, massively more county precincts, and walked away with the election because Hillary's strategy was stupid.  It had nothing to do with the "fairness" of our election process.  AND, if she had won, I'd be pissed, sure, but I wouldn't be calling for a popular vote.  I may have when I was younger and didn't know better and would have fallen for info like that video TL posted.  Sorry, my call "nonsense" stands.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on December 19, 2016, 06:49:09 PM
Wrong.  Its 3rd grade math.  I know you are smarter than this. 

Try to take emotion and partisan politics out of your head for a second, and just look at it rationall and logically.
This has absolutely zero to do with Hillary or Trump, and I am not disputing anything about the election.  Just stating facts.

IV. Does my vote count?

Yes, your vote counts. Some people have complained since 2000 that if the winner of the popular vote doesn't become president, their vote doesn't really count, so why vote at all? But every vote does count; it just counts in a more complicated way. When you vote for president, remember that you're voting in a state election, not a national election. So your vote counts just as much as anyone else's in your state — but it may count more or less than that of someone living in another state!

What's a vote worth?
Why does the actual weight of your vote vary by state? Remember that every state gets a number of electors that is the total of all of its representatives in Congress, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. The House of Representatives is divided approximately by population — big states have the most representatives, small states have the fewest — but every state has exactly two senators, regardless of size. That means that while big states have more electors than small states, they don't have as many more as they would based on population alone.


http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/lessons/davidwalbert7232004-02/electoralcollege.html (http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/lessons/davidwalbert7232004-02/electoralcollege.html)
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 19, 2016, 07:01:04 PM
Cmon dude.  Watch the video TL posted.  It makes it very simple to understand.....it is simple math.  It is not up for debate, it is 100% fact, and isnt anything new.

The video is wrong from the get go.  It starts "In a fair democracy..." which there is no such thing.  It takes more than simple math to determine why the EC is fair and necessary.  A pure democracy is rarely fair which is why we don't do it.  100% fact, not up for debate.

A good example are the video's like and dislike numbers - a purely democratic indicator.  Likes are WAY greater than dislikes, but the video is dead wrong factually.  This is exactly how SO many people have been brainwashed by leftist conditioning.  The information sounds so good and correct, but when you break it down it's all wrong.

Red Herrings.   So many that I will eat fish for a week!  LOL

Simple question.  In the current electoral college system, are all votes weighted equally?

or

Point out where the video is wrong.



EDIT:  Just keep it simple.  Take the population of a state, divide it by the number of electoral votes.  No need for red herrings and straw men.  It is simple math my elementary school kids can do.  The vote in each state has a different value.  Plain math.  No need to inject any politics.  This has been an obvious fact for a LONG time, and is not in dispute.

A vote may have a different weight in a *popular vote* but we do not use a popular vote system!!  Do you see that you are arguing math for a different kind of election process?  We have precincts, people vote within their precincts then their precincts become a vote, all the losing votes in each precinct still counted as a vote!  There are no half votes or times two votes, a vote is a vote, and its weight is within the precinct.  Then the precincts are tallied up for electoral votes, which is a pure democracy, but reduced down to a manageable representative number.  Would you seriously want LA, NYC, Miami, Atlanta, Dallas, San Francisco, Chicago and Seattle to call every election?  Is that what you are arguing for?  If our system is as flawed as you suggest, Obama should have pushed or change.

I am not dodging any questions here, the question has been answered over and over and over again.  Brutal truth: questioning the EC is juvenile at this point without presenting an option for something better and pure democracy is not better.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on December 19, 2016, 07:08:23 PM

A vote may have a different weight in a *popular vote* but we do not use a popular vote system!!  Do you see that you are arguing math for a different kind of election process?  We have precincts, people vote within their precincts then their precincts become a vote, all the losing votes in each precinct still counted as a vote!  There are no half votes or times two votes, a vote is a vote, and its weight is within the precinct.  Then the precincts are tallied up for electoral votes, which is a pure democracy, but reduced down to a manageable representative number.  Would you seriously want LA, NYC, Miami, Atlanta, Dallas, San Francisco, Chicago and Seattle to call every election?  Is that what you are arguing for?  If our system is as flawed as you suggest, Obama should have pushed or change.

I am not dodging any questions here, the question has been answered over and over and over again.  Brutal truth: questioning the EC is juvenile at this point without presenting an option for something better and pure democracy is not better.

No.  Simply wrong.  In a popular vote nationally, each vote is equal.  With the Electoral College each vote is equal within that state only.  Since Electoral votes are not done by population, but by representatives, each vote has a different value by state.

Questioning the EC is not juvenile.  It has a fault, and it is CLEARLY explained to you.  That flaw is all we are talking about.  I am not advocating to abolish the EC, so STOP assuming that is what anyone here wants.  Just FIX the EC.  I really dont understand why you cant simply focus on the one thing we are explaining.  It is 100% fact, proveable mathmatically, that some votes count more than others.  Fact.








FACT.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 19, 2016, 07:15:01 PM
In a popular vote nationally, each vote is equal.  With the Electoral College each vote is equal within that state only. 

There is communication breakdown here because that is essentially what I said.  When you apply a popular vote's weight to the EC it doesn't make sense, and when you apply an EC vote to a popular vote it doesn't make sense.  When you apply an EC vote to the EC it's all good.  And yes, there may be some flaw in the EC system, noting is perfect, but the EC system is better than a handful of heavily populated areas calling each election.  Right? 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: TL on December 19, 2016, 07:17:01 PM
7th, in the electoral college system, votes in different states literally aren't valued the same. In California, every 705,000 people get an electoral vote. In Wyoming, every 195,000 do. That is literally not equal.

Or is math a liberal conspiracy now?

As I said, and you promptly ignored, there are other parts of the process to avoid tyranny of the majority, like the way senate representation is proportioned, and with congress, with governors, and so on.

More than 2.6 million more American citizens voted for candidate A than candidate B. Why do we go with what fewer American citizens chose just because of where they all happen to live?
I promise you, if Trump had won the popular vote, while I wouldn't be happy about it, I would accept it as the will of a plurality of Americans.

Also, you absolutely didn't actually watch the video I posted, or at least not in full. They bring up that argument of "A few cities would always decide everything!". Turns out, once again if we turn to our good friend math, it isn't the case. The numbers just aren't there.
Also, even in the basis of that argument, you're again implying that people who live in cities shouldn't have as much say. Cities have what say they do because more American citizens live there. It's literally a matter of numbers.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on December 19, 2016, 07:21:25 PM
In a popular vote nationally, each vote is equal.  With the Electoral College each vote is equal within that state only. 

There is communication breakdown here because that is essentially what I said.  When you apply a popular vote's weight to the EC it doesn't make sense, and when you apply an EC vote to a popular vote it doesn't make sense.  When you apply an EC vote to the EC it's all good.  And yes, there may be some flaw in the EC system, noting is perfect, but the EC system is better than a handful of heavily populated areas calling each election.  Right?

I am not making any determination about how good the EC is.  My point, and that of others, was that each vote does not have the same value in the POTUS election, and that is its flaw. 

So....are you ready to agree that each vote does not have the same value in the presidential election using the EC?
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 19, 2016, 08:26:41 PM
7th, in the electoral college system, votes in different states literally aren't valued the same. In California, every 705,000 people get an electoral vote. In Wyoming, every 195,000 do. That is literally not equal.

Or is math a liberal conspiracy now?


The population of Wyoming is less than 750k and Wyoming has a few electoral votes compared to Cali's 55.  Math is not a liberal conspiracy, nor should it be abused to in an attempt to back up political ideas.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 19, 2016, 08:29:42 PM
So....are you ready to agree that each vote does not have the same value in the presidential election using the EC?

No, because that statement is false, the math you cite is wrong (as I just illustrated a glaring flaw to TL), and the whole argument you are making has been debunked at least 1000 times every day on college campuses around the nation. 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on December 19, 2016, 08:30:17 PM
7th, in the electoral college system, votes in different states literally aren't valued the same. In California, every 705,000 people get an electoral vote. In Wyoming, every 195,000 do. That is literally not equal.

Or is math a liberal conspiracy now?


The population of Wyoming is less than 750k and Wyoming has a few electoral votes compared to Cali's 55.  Math is not a liberal conspiracy, nor should it be abused to in an attempt to back up political ideas.

Awesome!  Now divide the population of those states by the electoral votes.  Go ahead...I'll wait...there, see the difference?
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on December 19, 2016, 08:32:40 PM
So....are you ready to agree that each vote does not have the same value in the presidential election using the EC?

No, because that statement is false, the math you cite is wrong (as I just illustrated a glaring flaw to TL), and the whole argument you are making has been debunked at least 1000 times every day on college campuses around the nation.

Then show me the math.  If 1000's of college campuses have debunked it, just show it here.  If you can show how the individual votes are equal in the EC, I will concede defeat.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: PowerSlave on December 19, 2016, 08:43:45 PM
I just did a quick google search, and here are my numbers between the two states:

(Note: I rounded the numbers to the nearest hundredth)

wyoming electoral votes = 3

wyoming population = 584,153 (2014 numbers)

wyoming number of individual votes per electoral college votes= 194,717.67



cali electoral votes = 55

cali population = 38,800,000 (2014 numbers)

cali number of individual votes per electoral college votes = 705,454.54

Very easy math. I'm a blue-collar idiot with only one year of college, and it took me all of 30 seconds to look the information up, enter it into a calculator and type this message. The very simple math behind this is undeniable.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on December 19, 2016, 08:48:05 PM
Powerslave, that math is debunked 1000's of times every day on college campuses.  You are just upset Hillary lost.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: PowerSlave on December 19, 2016, 08:49:54 PM
Powerslave, that math is debunked 1000's of times every day on college campuses.  You are just upset Hillary lost.

How dare you!!!...oh, wait...green text...never mind  :lol
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 19, 2016, 08:52:07 PM
So....are you ready to agree that each vote does not have the same value in the presidential election using the EC?

No, because that statement is false, the math you cite is wrong (as I just illustrated a glaring flaw to TL), and the whole argument you are making has been debunked at least 1000 times every day on college campuses around the nation.

Then show me the math.  If 1000's of college campuses have debunked it, just show it here.  If you can show how the individual votes are equal in the EC, I will concede defeat.

uuggghh.  The *argument is debunked* not the math, the math is flawed because it calculates vote "value" in a system where millions of votes are consolidated into 538 votes which are then cast by electors in a pure democratic vote.  Furthermore, lending credit to the vote values math which is just a statistical distribution of population across representitives, the distribution is still very close with the exception of a couple of states, AND there is nothing stopping any voter from living and casting their vote where they want so the average vote value distribution is totally irrelevant.  I you want your vote to "matter", which is a joke of a concept, simply move to a state with a median population.  But, even that is no guarantee the state will be a swing state and frankly, the swing states in each election are the only votes that really "count".  But it takes *every voters vote* to establish swing states!!  The EC system has been proven to work.  Just deal with it or propose something better - but a straight popular vote is not better.   
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on December 19, 2016, 08:55:13 PM
So....are you ready to agree that each vote does not have the same value in the presidential election using the EC?

No, because that statement is false, the math you cite is wrong (as I just illustrated a glaring flaw to TL), and the whole argument you are making has been debunked at least 1000 times every day on college campuses around the nation.

Then show me the math.  If 1000's of college campuses have debunked it, just show it here.  If you can show how the individual votes are equal in the EC, I will concede defeat.

uuggghh.  The *argument is debunked* not the math, the math is flawed because it calculates vote "value" in a system where millions of votes are consolidated into 538 votes which are then cast by electors in a pure democratic vote.  Furthermore, lending credit to the vote values math which is just a statistical distribution of population across representitives, the distribution is still very close with the exception of a couple of states, AND there is nothing stopping any voter from living and casting their vote where they want so the average vote value distribution is totally irrelevant.  I you want your vote to "matter", which is a joke of a concept, simply move to a state with a median population.  But, even that is no guarantee the state will be a swing state and frankly, the swing states in each election are the only votes that really "count".  But it takes *every voters vote* to establish swing states!!  The EC system has been proven to work.  Just deal with it or propose something better - but a straight popular vote is not better.

Wow that was fun wacthing you try and dance around the simple truth.
Sad you cand disconnect your political bias to discuss a simple flaw with the EC.
If you cant see it with Powerslaves post, then it is clear you will fight tooth and nail to never accept the plain and simple truth.  THAT is the kind of mindset and behavior I dont want to see in the POTUS.  Facing this level of futility is a signal to go to bed.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 19, 2016, 08:56:05 PM
Powerslave, that math is debunked 1000's of times every day on college campuses.  You are just upset Hillary lost.

To quote myself for Eric's benefit (so he stops misquoting me):

"...the whole argument you are making has been debunked at least 1000 times every day on college campuses around the nation."

Your argument being that that statistical distribution of votes reduces the "value" of a presidential election vote.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on December 19, 2016, 08:58:46 PM
Powerslave, that math is debunked 1000's of times every day on college campuses.  You are just upset Hillary lost.

To quote myself for Eric's benefit (so he stops misquoting me):

"...the whole argument you are making has been debunked at least 1000 times every day on college campuses around the nation."

Your argument being that that statistical distribution of votes reduces the "value" of a presidential election vote.

Ummmm, yes it does, and I am shocked that you cant see it. 
Peace out.  I wont waste another second on this futility.   :lol
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: PowerSlave on December 19, 2016, 09:11:07 PM
So....are you ready to agree that each vote does not have the same value in the presidential election using the EC?

No, because that statement is false, the math you cite is wrong (as I just illustrated a glaring flaw to TL), and the whole argument you are making has been debunked at least 1000 times every day on college campuses around the nation.

There's the full quote. There's nothing wrong with the math. The premise behind Eric's statements was that there is a flaw in the EC. An individual vote in one state holds more power than an individual vote in another state. This is a mathematical truth. There is no feeling involved. There is no bias involved.

Now I'm going to further follow Eric's lead, and bid this thread adieu. Good evening to all.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 19, 2016, 09:14:36 PM
I just did a quick google search, and here are my numbers between the two states:

(Note: I rounded the numbers to the nearest hundredth)

wyoming electoral votes = 3

wyoming population = 584,153 (2014 numbers)

wyoming number of individual votes per electoral college votes= 194,717.67



cali electoral votes = 55

cali population = 38,800,000 (2014 numbers)

cali number of individual votes per electoral college votes = 705,454.54

Very easy math. I'm a blue-collar idiot with only one year of college, and it took me all of 30 seconds to look the information up, enter it into a calculator and type this message. The very simple math behind this is undeniable.

Okay, what this simple math implies is that if you were to normalized the EC votes by population across all the states, you'd end up with an EC vote mathematically equivalent to a popular vote!  There are deeper reasons for the totally deliberate distribution imbalances and the EC.  Bottom line, the EC approach is fair and a popular vote is not fair AND nobody has come up with anything better.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on December 19, 2016, 09:16:33 PM
I just did a quick google search, and here are my numbers between the two states:

(Note: I rounded the numbers to the nearest hundredth)

wyoming electoral votes = 3

wyoming population = 584,153 (2014 numbers)

wyoming number of individual votes per electoral college votes= 194,717.67



cali electoral votes = 55

cali population = 38,800,000 (2014 numbers)

cali number of individual votes per electoral college votes = 705,454.54

Very easy math. I'm a blue-collar idiot with only one year of college, and it took me all of 30 seconds to look the information up, enter it into a calculator and type this message. The very simple math behind this is undeniable.

Okay, what this simple math implies is that if you were to normalized the EC votes by population across all the states, you'd end up with an EC vote mathematically equivalent to a popular vote!  There are deeper reasons for the totally deliberate distribution imbalances and the EC.  Bottom line, the EC approach is fair and a popular vote is not fair AND nobody has come up with anything better.

WRONG.  Not a popular vote nationally.  Each state would still have their own election.  But each individual vote would have the same weight if each state was given EC votes by population.

And there is no "deeper" reason for the EC distribution.   :lol  PLEASE tell us all what this "deeper" reason is!
It is a MORONIC and arbitrary reason.  Each state automatically gets 2 EC votes because it has 2 senators REGARDLESS of population.  That is PRECISELY what the flaw is!!!!!!!!

Starting to see the light?

I do not have the time to walk you through this.  It should be very evident.  Read the link I posted tonight, and get back to me tomorrow.  I have faith in you.

Good Night
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 19, 2016, 09:28:09 PM
I just did a quick google search, and here are my numbers between the two states:

(Note: I rounded the numbers to the nearest hundredth)

wyoming electoral votes = 3

wyoming population = 584,153 (2014 numbers)

wyoming number of individual votes per electoral college votes= 194,717.67



cali electoral votes = 55

cali population = 38,800,000 (2014 numbers)

cali number of individual votes per electoral college votes = 705,454.54

Very easy math. I'm a blue-collar idiot with only one year of college, and it took me all of 30 seconds to look the information up, enter it into a calculator and type this message. The very simple math behind this is undeniable.

Okay, what this simple math implies is that if you were to normalized the EC votes by population across all the states, you'd end up with an EC vote mathematically equivalent to a popular vote!  There are deeper reasons for the totally deliberate distribution imbalances and the EC.  Bottom line, the EC approach is fair and a popular vote is not fair AND nobody has come up with anything better.

WRONG.  Not a popular vote nationally.  Each state would still have their own election.  But each individual bvote would have the same weight if each state was given EC votes by population.

And there is no "deeper" reason for the EC distribution.   :lol  PLEASE tell us all what this "deeper" reason is!
It is a MORONIC and arbitrary reason.  Each state automatically gets 2 EC votes because it has 2 senators RGARDLESS of population.  That is PRECISELY what the flaw is!!!!!!!!

Starting to see the light?

The light you seek:

"Why does the actual weight of your vote vary by state? Remember that every state gets a number of electors that is the total of all of its representatives in Congress, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. The House of Representatives is divided approximately by population — big states have the most representatives, small states have the fewest — but every state has exactly two senators, regardless of size. That means that while big states have more electors than small states, they don't have as many more as they would based on population alone. "

From:
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/lessons/davidwalbert7232004-02/electoralcollege.html#4

As I have said, we are rehashing common grade school knowledge here (same source):

"When you vote for president, remember that you're voting in a state election, not a national election. So your vote counts just as much as anyone else's in your state — but it may count more or less than that of someone living in another state!"

So, you are correct that across states, vote weight varies, but as I pointed out nobody is restricted to voting in a particular state - so in a way we are both right, but people arguing that their vote does not "count" is false.  You wanted me to concede, well there it is but I am not conceding that the math you cite shows a "flaw" in the EC.  That flaw is the whole reason the EC exists.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on December 19, 2016, 09:33:39 PM
No, you still are not right, not even a little.

Good night.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 19, 2016, 09:34:39 PM
It is a MORONIC and arbitrary reason.  Each state automatically gets 2 EC votes because it has 2 senators REGARDLESS of population.  That is PRECISELY what the flaw is!!!!!!!!

Man, nip the condescending tone.  It is not necessary nor does it lend any credit to our intellectual integrity.

The thing you are calling a flaw is the deliberate imbalance the EC provides.  If you think the flaw should be removed you will end up with a popular vote.  Why not just have a popular vote?  Well, because it has been determined that an EC vote prevents mob rule.  See why the math simply does not matter?
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on December 19, 2016, 09:44:32 PM
It is a MORONIC and arbitrary reason.  Each state automatically gets 2 EC votes because it has 2 senators REGARDLESS of population.  That is PRECISELY what the flaw is!!!!!!!!

Man, nip the condescending tone.  It is not necessary nor does it lend any credit to our intellectual integrity.

The thing you are calling a flaw is the deliberate imbalance the EC provides.  If you think the flaw should be removed you will end up with a popular vote.  Why not just have a popular vote?  Well, because it has been determined that an EC vote prevents mob rule.  See why the math simply does not matter?

There was zero condescending tone in that quoted post. 
The flaw is a flaw....the imbalance is a flaw.
And you really need to stop saying it will result In a popular vote.....it won't as there will still be state elections.  See why the math does matter?
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on December 19, 2016, 09:49:59 PM
If each state had EC votes corresponding to population, how can it be a popular vote if each state has its own elections?    How is this not blatantly obvious?

Let's say in Vermont we have 60% vote for X.  X gets the electoral votes for the state which is for ALL the voters in VT.   Boom....popular vote gone.

We just want the EC votes to correspond to population by state so each vote is weighted equally.  That doesn't mean each vote will go to their candidate because each state will have one winner.  Get it?

Please tell me you get it now so I can go to bed lol
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 19, 2016, 10:25:51 PM
We just want the EC votes to correspond to population by state so each vote is weighted equally.  That doesn't mean each vote will go to their candidate because each state will have one winner.  Get it?

If the EC vote correspond to population by state, that would reverse the reason why the EC exists - to prevent the population of a state to swing an election.  But it is deeper, like I said, because it has more to do with population centers within states which is why we use the representative numbers.  Like California, for example, gives a HUGE advantage in the EC to the candidate that state votes for.  That advantage is mathematically nullified by the disadvantage in other states so it evens out.
 
I don't think it is a flaw, I contend it is design, but if it is a flaw what is the solution and why hasn't the solution been implemented?
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Prog Snob on December 19, 2016, 10:37:59 PM
There is a rational reason that the electoral college adjusts the electorates based on the states population. You claim that Wyoming has an edge because they have more electoral votes per population, and this is half true. Yes, they have more electoral votes per their population, but this doesn't give them an edge. In order to give every state a fair representation, these adjustments need to be made. If not, we'll find that elections are decided by only the most populated states, and the measly 60,000 or so citizens of Cheyenne, Wyoming would have their votes count for next to nothing. Numerous studies have been done on this and it's not that hard to understand. I'm sure you'll figure it out. I have faith in you.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 19, 2016, 10:56:21 PM
There is a rational reason that the electoral college adjusts the electorates based on the states population. You claim that Wyoming has an edge because they have more electoral votes per population, and this is half true. Yes, they have more electoral votes per their population, but this doesn't give them an edge. In order to give every state a fair representation, these adjustments need to be made. If not, we'll find that elections are decided by only the most populated states, and the measly 60,000 or so citizens of Cheyenne, Wyoming would have their votes count for next to nothing. Numerous studies have been done on this and it's not that hard to understand. I'm sure you'll figure it out. I have faith in you.

This is a way better explanation than I could muster.  Thank you Prog Snob.  The variances across states do not create an unfair system, they help the system be more fair.  The math doesn't expose a flaw, it exposes a genius adjustment to prevent mob rule. 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on December 20, 2016, 04:45:05 AM
There is a rational reason that the electoral college adjusts the electorates based on the states population. You claim that Wyoming has an edge because they have more electoral votes per population, and this is half true. Yes, they have more electoral votes per their population, but this doesn't give them an edge. In order to give every state a fair representation, these adjustments need to be made. If not, we'll find that elections are decided by only the most populated states, and the measly 60,000 or so citizens of Cheyenne, Wyoming would have their votes count for next to nothing. Numerous studies have been done on this and it's not that hard to understand. I'm sure you'll figure it out. I have faith in you.

How does it make the representation more fair?   What is the rationale or measuring stick for fairness?  Why Cali at 55, and why WY at 3?

Having State elections prevents a national popular vote.  What should each state be worth and why?  The way it is now, it is not a fair or equal. 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Prog Snob on December 20, 2016, 05:11:34 AM
I just explained how it makes it more fair. It's not rocket science. I'm not saying the EC is perfect and flawless, but it's certainly a more accurate representation of the nation as a whole.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on December 20, 2016, 05:18:41 AM
I just explained how it makes it more fair. It's not rocket science. I'm not saying the EC is perfect and flawless, but it's certainly a more accurate representation of the nation as a whole.

No, you just said it is a more fair representation, but didnt say how or why.  And the math shows it is a woefulkly innacurate representation as a whole.

What criteria are you using to determine "fairness"?   

Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Prog Snob on December 20, 2016, 05:30:14 AM
I just explained how it makes it more fair. It's not rocket science. I'm not saying the EC is perfect and flawless, but it's certainly a more accurate representation of the nation as a whole.

No, you just said it is a more fair representation, but didnt say how or why.  And the math shows it is a woefulkly innacurate representation as a whole.

What criteria are you using to determine "fairness"?

I certainly said why and how. I'm not going to let you lure me into to this evasive logic of yours like you did with 7th. You know exactly what I said and you know exactly what it means. Let's just leave it at that.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on December 20, 2016, 05:33:39 AM
I just explained how it makes it more fair. It's not rocket science. I'm not saying the EC is perfect and flawless, but it's certainly a more accurate representation of the nation as a whole.

No, you just said it is a more fair representation, but didnt say how or why.  And the math shows it is a woefulkly innacurate representation as a whole.

What criteria are you using to determine "fairness"?

I certainly said why and how. I'm not going to let you lure me into to this evasive logic of yours like you did with 7th. You know exactly what I said and you know exactly what it means. Let's just leave it at that.

Logic isnt a trap ProgSnob.

If, like you said, the EC votes are to be determined by population, why are they not done by population?
What other factors are used to determine fairness in EC votes between states?
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: PowerSlave on December 20, 2016, 08:11:12 AM
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-electoral-college-history-20161219-story.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

Interesting little article. I wasn't aware of this happening.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on December 20, 2016, 08:24:37 AM
Thank god reason prevailed.  The EC has proven it's worth, genius and beauty time and time again, giving all people a voice, more voice than they would have under the simplistic (it's COMMON SENSE!) "popular vote".  Slicing it any way shape or form you want - popular vote, EC, combination of both - Trump wins without California.  ONLY the votes of California, and only for the POPULAR vote, change that.   So now you have a system whereby the other 49 states are heard, AND California is heard (none of those votes are wasted, because they led to Hillary having all 55 electoral votes).   

It's a marvelous system, really.


Oh, and I find some comfort that in yesterday's tally, FIVE electors decided to vote their conscience and not follow the prescriptions of their state's voters.  One was removed from their seat by state law and replaced by an elector that WOULD vote the voice of the people, and the other four were allowed to vote for other candidates (though they didn't vote for the opposite candidate).   The kicker to all this?  For all her squawking and crying and whining and complaining, all FIVE opted NOT to vote for HILLARY, not TRUMP.   There is some small justice in the world. 
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: PowerSlave on December 20, 2016, 08:33:29 AM
Thank god reason prevailed.  The EC has proven it's worth, genius and beauty time and time again, giving all people a voice, more voice than they would have under the simplistic (it's COMMON SENSE!) "popular vote".  Slicing it any way shape or form you want - popular vote, EC, combination of both - Trump wins without California.  ONLY the votes of California, and only for the POPULAR vote, change that.   So now you have a system whereby the other 49 states are heard, AND California is heard (none of those votes are wasted, because they led to Hillary having all 55 electoral votes).   

It's a marvelous system, really.


Oh, and I find some comfort that in yesterday's tally, FIVE electors decided to vote their conscience and not follow the prescriptions of their state's voters.  One was removed from their seat by state law and replaced by an elector that WOULD vote the voice of the people, and the other four were allowed to vote for other candidates (though they didn't vote for the opposite candidate).   The kicker to all this?  For all her squawking and crying and whining and complaining, all FIVE opted NOT to vote for HILLARY, not TRUMP.   There is some small justice in the world.

I read somewhere that one of the electors from Texas voted for Kasich. I haven't seen anything about the others. I'll have to look around a little. It'll probably be easy to find, though.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on December 20, 2016, 09:11:38 AM
I think the EC, with its individual state elections is fine.  The state elections fix the popular national vote concerns.  The only tweak needed is to make the number of votes a state gets,to be more representative of its voting population.  That fixes the issues with votes having different value.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on December 20, 2016, 10:28:13 AM
"Having different value" is not a problem.  That's the point.    It's not tied SOLELY to population for a reason, and it's not supposed to be.  Part of the beauty of this is that it gives the STATE power.  Not the people of the state, the STATE ITSELF.  That's why the "+2" with regards to representation; so that it's not purely a function of population.   States can't be gerrymandered like counties and districts can.  Tying the EC to population - even if calculated by state - has a symmetry, but not a functionality.  It would remove an essential fail-safe.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on December 20, 2016, 11:23:29 AM
"Having different value" is not a problem.  That's the point.    It's not tied SOLELY to population for a reason, and it's not supposed to be.  Part of the beauty of this is that it gives the STATE power.  Not the people of the state, the STATE ITSELF.  That's why the "+2" with regards to representation; so that it's not purely a function of population.   States can't be gerrymandered like counties and districts can.  Tying the EC to population - even if calculated by state - has a symmetry, but not a functionality.  It would remove an essential fail-safe.

The state still has the power with EC votes tied to population.
And what is the fail safe for and how does it work?
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: DragonAttack on December 20, 2016, 11:30:20 AM
So, let's just say Clinton won the electoral at 272-268, and those electoral voters did as they did, what chaos would ensue from their actions?  THAT is the part that is scary
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: cramx3 on December 20, 2016, 12:03:58 PM
Thank god reason prevailed.  The EC has proven it's worth, genius and beauty time and time again, giving all people a voice, more voice than they would have under the simplistic (it's COMMON SENSE!) "popular vote".  Slicing it any way shape or form you want - popular vote, EC, combination of both - Trump wins without California.  ONLY the votes of California, and only for the POPULAR vote, change that.   So now you have a system whereby the other 49 states are heard, AND California is heard (none of those votes are wasted, because they led to Hillary having all 55 electoral votes).   

It's a marvelous system, really.


Oh, and I find some comfort that in yesterday's tally, FIVE electors decided to vote their conscience and not follow the prescriptions of their state's voters.  One was removed from their seat by state law and replaced by an elector that WOULD vote the voice of the people, and the other four were allowed to vote for other candidates (though they didn't vote for the opposite candidate).   The kicker to all this?  For all her squawking and crying and whining and complaining, all FIVE opted NOT to vote for HILLARY, not TRUMP.   There is some small justice in the world.

I read somewhere that one of the electors from Texas voted for Kasich. I haven't seen anything about the others. I'll have to look around a little. It'll probably be easy to find, though.

Yea, I read some democrating voters switched to more moderate conservatives like Kasich in hopes that republicans would follow but it did not work.

Also, I am very glad this did not work.  Regardless of whether the EC is the best solution, I don't think it's a good idea for the electors to change the will of the people.  I'm honestly not sure what the point is of having actual electors doing voting and not just go by the numbers and let them fall as the votes land.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on December 20, 2016, 12:06:05 PM
It's important to understand that the alternative to the electoral college is not just "popular vote", but a vote of the representatives of CONGRESS.  Those were the alternatives that were being considered by the Founding Fathers.   Remember, there is no other election we have that is truly national; EVERY other election is handled on the state or local level, and that is a specific throwback to the sanctity of states rights.   In this age of instant communication, and flash travel, we have minimized in recent times the power of states and the obligation of STATES to implement the will of the people, not the Federal government.  But in that light, we have to equally protect the rights of the STATES almost as much (but not as much) as the rights of the people.  So what happens is, as states grow smaller, they have disproportionally greater power, but at the other end, where presumably the rights of the people are more represented, that doesn't grant those states proportionally more power. 

By skewing the power disproportionately to the smaller states, it not only empowers them, but creates incentive for candidates to concentrate on those localities in our nation that are NOT the populist centers.  If it was truly proportional, then even though the smaller states would have SOME power, they would not have enough to overcome the mass of populist areas, and the fear is, even though they would have a vote, per se, they wouldn't necessarily have a VOICE, or have the attention of the candidates.   Again, not the PEOPLE of that state, but the state itself.  By that I mean the policies, geography, industry, and programs of that state.  It is also a safeguard against rapid relocation (migration) to/from the cities.     
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Stadler on December 20, 2016, 12:11:42 PM
Thank god reason prevailed.  The EC has proven it's worth, genius and beauty time and time again, giving all people a voice, more voice than they would have under the simplistic (it's COMMON SENSE!) "popular vote".  Slicing it any way shape or form you want - popular vote, EC, combination of both - Trump wins without California.  ONLY the votes of California, and only for the POPULAR vote, change that.   So now you have a system whereby the other 49 states are heard, AND California is heard (none of those votes are wasted, because they led to Hillary having all 55 electoral votes).   

It's a marvelous system, really.


Oh, and I find some comfort that in yesterday's tally, FIVE electors decided to vote their conscience and not follow the prescriptions of their state's voters.  One was removed from their seat by state law and replaced by an elector that WOULD vote the voice of the people, and the other four were allowed to vote for other candidates (though they didn't vote for the opposite candidate).   The kicker to all this?  For all her squawking and crying and whining and complaining, all FIVE opted NOT to vote for HILLARY, not TRUMP.   There is some small justice in the world.

I read somewhere that one of the electors from Texas voted for Kasich. I haven't seen anything about the others. I'll have to look around a little. It'll probably be easy to find, though.

Yea, I read some democrating voters switched to more moderate conservatives like Kasich in hopes that republicans would follow but it did not work.

Also, I am very glad this did not work.  Regardless of whether the EC is the best solution, I don't think it's a good idea for the electors to change the will of the people.  I'm honestly not sure what the point is of having actual electors doing voting and not just go by the numbers and let them fall as the votes land.

Well, as much as I don't think that it should have happened here, on this one point, the naysayers are correct.  The idea was to create distance - time, primarily, but also emotional - between the people actually pulling the lever and those actually casting the vote for the president.   The idea wasn't to supplant political will - it's not intended to be a partisan idea - but it was meant to provide time to "sober up" if you will, and give some

Remember, the Founding Fathers were students of this game.  They feared the perils of a direct democracy (mob rule, in essence) as much as they feared the aristocracy that they had just fought against for independence.  So the electors provided a separation from the mob whereby they would presumably represent and reflect the will of the people, but provide a cushion in the event that the mob elected (I think Hamilton said this) "a criminal, a traitor, or a heinous person".
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: cramx3 on December 20, 2016, 12:14:59 PM
Thank god reason prevailed.  The EC has proven it's worth, genius and beauty time and time again, giving all people a voice, more voice than they would have under the simplistic (it's COMMON SENSE!) "popular vote".  Slicing it any way shape or form you want - popular vote, EC, combination of both - Trump wins without California.  ONLY the votes of California, and only for the POPULAR vote, change that.   So now you have a system whereby the other 49 states are heard, AND California is heard (none of those votes are wasted, because they led to Hillary having all 55 electoral votes).   

It's a marvelous system, really.


Oh, and I find some comfort that in yesterday's tally, FIVE electors decided to vote their conscience and not follow the prescriptions of their state's voters.  One was removed from their seat by state law and replaced by an elector that WOULD vote the voice of the people, and the other four were allowed to vote for other candidates (though they didn't vote for the opposite candidate).   The kicker to all this?  For all her squawking and crying and whining and complaining, all FIVE opted NOT to vote for HILLARY, not TRUMP.   There is some small justice in the world.

I read somewhere that one of the electors from Texas voted for Kasich. I haven't seen anything about the others. I'll have to look around a little. It'll probably be easy to find, though.

Yea, I read some democrating voters switched to more moderate conservatives like Kasich in hopes that republicans would follow but it did not work.

Also, I am very glad this did not work.  Regardless of whether the EC is the best solution, I don't think it's a good idea for the electors to change the will of the people.  I'm honestly not sure what the point is of having actual electors doing voting and not just go by the numbers and let them fall as the votes land.

Well, as much as I don't think that it should have happened here, on this one point, the naysayers are correct.  The idea was to create distance - time, primarily, but also emotional - between the people actually pulling the lever and those actually casting the vote for the president.   The idea wasn't to supplant political will - it's not intended to be a partisan idea - but it was meant to provide time to "sober up" if you will, and give some

Remember, the Founding Fathers were students of this game.  They feared the perils of a direct democracy (mob rule, in essence) as much as they feared the aristocracy that they had just fought against for independence.  So the electors provided a separation from the mob whereby they would presumably represent and reflect the will of the people, but provide a cushion in the event that the mob elected (I think Hamilton said this) "a criminal, a traitor, or a heinous person".

Cool, yea I don't know the history behind this.  Interesting cause I could see Trump described as a heinous person and Hillary described as a criminal.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on December 20, 2016, 12:19:35 PM
It's still a distinction without a difference.  If states power should be equal, then make them equal.  If equality is not the goal the distribute the EC votes with some sense of logic.  There is no reasoning behind how it affects the varying states.  The votes are already partially by population, why artificially create an illogical imbalance.

And I still do not see what it is a fail safe against.  Each state is still in control with its own election.  If a state is smaller with fewer people it should count less.  If you want the disparity to be lessened, do it proportionately.  Just adding two votes to every state creates more problems than it solves.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: XJDenton on December 20, 2016, 12:23:37 PM
Degressively proportional systems make some sense if you are electing multiple representatives. In the case of a winner takes all system however, all you do is exchange one mob for another. How exactly is a minority of the population being allowed to subject a majority to its will a good thing?

And we already have an elected body in which all states have equal power: the senate.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: 7th on December 20, 2016, 12:54:01 PM
How exactly is a minority of the population being allowed to subject a majority to its will a good thing?

It's an awesome thing.  I will once again cite the example of two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.  In the USA right now the wolves are the urban liberals.  They were supporting a corrupt and incompetent individual for office who promoted division, hate, lawlessness, and hawkish views towards foreign policy.  The system worked and the more moderate and reasonable middle America prevailed.  It is a very good thing.  If Trump proves to be a bad leader, he'll be gone in four years (or sooner).  If he is a good leader, be honest about it and support him.  Just let the system work.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: eric42434224 on December 20, 2016, 12:59:04 PM
Can't you at least try to take partisan politics out of the discussion?  It really can be discussed much better without the bias and political rhetoric.
Title: Re: How do you view the popular vote?
Post by: Implode on December 20, 2016, 01:46:57 PM
In the USA right now the wolves are the urban liberals.  They were supporting a corrupt and incompetent individual for office who promoted division, hate, lawlessness, and hawkish views towards foreign policy.  The system worked and the more moderate and reasonable middle America prevailed.

It's very hard to have a meaningful discussion among statements like this. I could respond on the very same level by saying:

Yeah, well the urban liberals are more accepting of others because they actually live with diverse people instead of moving away from anyone that looks or thinks differently than them. And the rural living conservatives support a fascist demagogue who protects the status quo of white/male power. The broken system has failed the country and now the fear and rage filled half of the country has put itself in a dire situation, and the rest of the world is laughing at us.

See? These kinds of statements help no one and further no discussion. It's just pushing what you believe the opposite sides' ideals onto them which leaves no room for anyone to have a starting point to respond to you.